TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of PVC footwears. 2. In respect of its new industrial undertaking the ITO for each of the years under consideration allowed deduction to the assessee under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') of Rs. 25,947 in the assessment year 1975-76, Rs. 27,823 in the assessment year 1976-77, and Rs. 25,938 in the assessment year 1977-78. While computing the above deductions, it is an admitted position that the ITO while computing the capital basis for the purpose of aforesaid deductions had taken into account the borrowed capital of the assessee in each of the years concerned. It may be added, however, here that the assessment orders for the years under consideration were passed on 25-1-1978 (assessment year 1975-76), 3-2-1979 (assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee brought the matter by way of appeals before the AAC who has agreed with the ITO. 5. In the appeals before the Tribunal the representative for the assessee, Shri Nagrath, basing himself on the ratio of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. General Electric Co. of India Ltd. [1978] 112 ITR 246 has urged that though the amendment in question incorporated in section 80J(1A) was retrospective in effect, for assessments of the assessees, like the one before us, with retrospective effect from 1-4-1972, the mistake which was sought to be rectified by the ITO in the present case though a deemed mistake was not mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified. Shri Nagrath further urged that the ratio of the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had already been promulgated when the Income-tax Officer sought to rectify under section 35 of the 1922 Act. The records as it stood at the relevant time disclosed an apparent mistake. In the case of S. A. L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas [1965] 57 ITR 149 (SC) the Amending Act with retrospective effect was also in existence at the time when the Income-tax Officer proceeded to rectify the order and could determine whether the records disclosed an apparent mistake in the background of the Amended Act. In the instant case the amending Act came into existence long after the order sought to be rectified and the order of rectification. Therefore, at the relevant time, the mistake, though deemed, could not be apparent from the records. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
