TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee did not preferred any appeal before first appellate authority. The only basis on which the same has been denied by first appellate authority is the fact that there was no mistake apparent from record in any of the orders that require rectification. As held in ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.[2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court could be termed as mistake apparent from the record . Respectfully, following the same, we hold that the afore-said claim made by the assessee in terms of decision of jurisdictional High Court as well as the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court could be subject matter of rectification application u/s 154 notwithsta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Claim of interest u/s 244A on self-assessment tax paid - whether allowability of interest u/s 244A in not appealable before CIT(A) as the same is not part of order u/s 154 - Held that:- Upon due consideration, we are of the opinion that the assessee was entitled for legitimate interest as per law and the directions given by first appellate authority were merely consequential in nature since Ld. AO was directed to verify the assessee s claim qua interest at the threshold of statutory provisions as contained in Section 244A and ascertain the correct amount of interest due to the assessee. No perversity could be found in the impugned direction. Accordingly, the revenue s appeal stands dismissed. - I.T.A. No.7219/Mum/2017 And I .T.A. No.704/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l effect of which was given vide order dated 01/06/2016. The appeal giving effect order was subjected to rectification u/s 154 by Ld. AO vide notice dated 01/09/2016 to rectify the opening WDV of product registration expenditure . 2.3 In the meanwhile, the assessee moved rectification petition to Ld. AO on 04/04/2016 to submit that expenditure on bonus shares was fully allowable as revenue expenditure in terms of judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court rendered in CIT Vs WMI Cranes Limited. [326 ITR 523] as well as the decision of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in CIT Vs General Insurance Corporation [286 ITR 232]. The Ld. AO, while rectifying the opening WDV of product registration expenditure, however, declined to allow the expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that emerges is the fact that the assessee has moved rectification petition u/s 154 for the first time towards his claim u/s 35D relying upon the decision of Hon ble Apex Court as well as the decision of jurisdictional High Court. The disallowance of original claim to the extent of 1/5th of total expenditure as made in the return of income had already attained finality since the assessee did not preferred any appeal before first appellate authority. The only basis on which the same has been denied by first appellate authority is the fact that there was no mistake apparent from record in any of the orders that require rectification. However, the Hon ble Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [305 ITR 227] has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on ble Supreme Court could be subject matter of rectification application u/s 154 notwithstanding the fact that the same was not claimed by the assessee during original assessment proceedings as well as during appellate proceedings. 5.2 Looking from another angle, we find that in terms of Article 265 of the constitution of India, no tax is to be levied or collected except by the authority of law. There could be no estoppel against law. Acquiescence could not take away from a party the relief that he was entitled to where the tax is levied or collected without the authority of law. Further, it is obligatory on the part of Ld. AO to apply his mind to the facts disclosed in the return and assess the assessee keeping in mind the law holdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee has placed on record, the computations / assessment orders of subsequent years to demonstrate that the deduction of this expenditure has not been claimed / allowed by the assessee in subsequent years and hence, there is no double deduction. The material on record supports the same. Accordingly, the assessee s appeal stands allowed. The Ld. AO is directed to allow the deduction of ₹ 66.93 Lacs in full as claimed by the assessee. 6. The revenue s appeal stem from the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the assessee s ground pertaining to claim of interest u/s 244A on self-assessment tax paid without appreciating the fact that allowability of interest u/s 244A in not appealable before CIT(A) as the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
