Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 674 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake u/s 254 - deduction allowed u/s 10A - Tribunal has incorrectly understood the facts relating to unrealized export proceeds within the prescribed time limit and also considered the facts relating to AY 2009-10 for deciding the issue in AY 2008-09 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Tribunal has considered the facts relating to AY 2009-10 for deciding the issue urged in AY 2008-09. As submitted that there is no observation in the orders of the tax authorities about non-realisation of export proceeds altogether, as observed by the Tribunal, i.e., it is nobody’s case that the assessee did not realize export proceeds at all. According to Ld A.R, Ld CIT(A) observations also meant that the assessee did not realize the amount mentioned above within the prescribed time. Thus, we notice that it is a case of incorrect understanding of facts. In the instant case, it is a case of incorrect understanding of facts. Accordingly, we find merit in the contentions of Ld A.R that incorrect appreciation of facts and consideration of facts relating to AY 2009-10 for deciding the issue in AY 2008-09 has resulted in a mistake apparent from record in respect of this issue in AY 2008- 09. Identical type of mistake has been pointed out by the assessee in AY 2009-10 also. What was pointed out by the AO was that the export proceeds were not realized within the time prescribed in sec.10A of the Act. Accordingly, following our decision rendered in AY 2008-09, we hold that there is mistake apparent from record in AY 2009-10 also on this issue, as there is incorrect appreciation of facts. As noticed earlier that the jurisdictional Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held in the case of Mcdowell & Co. Ltd [2008 (3) TMI 301 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that the case of erroneous application of law/provisions will fall outside the scope of sec.254(2) of the Act. The assessee has contended that there is erroneous application of law/provisions of the Act. Hence this plea raised by the assessee in both the years would fall outside the scope of sec.254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we reject this plea of the assessee in both the years. We recall the orders passed by Tribunal in AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 for the limited purpose of adjudicating the Ground No.1 in both assessment year 2008-09 and AY 2009-10.
|