TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without jurisdiction and is based on misinterpretation of the provisions of s. 154 of the Act. In order to understand the grievance, brief background is necessary which is as follows. 3. The assessment for asst. yrs. 1994-95 to 1999-2000 was framed by the AO vide orders passed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act on 22nd March, 2002 read with subsequent orders under s. 154 dt. 28th March, 2002. The aforesaid orders were reviewed by the CIT and were cancelled by invoking the provisions of s. 263 of the Act vide order dt. 23rd March, 2004. The issue involved was relating to the interest income received by the assessee with regard to the enhanced compensation accruing on acquisition of land by the State Government. The CIT in his order unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments were found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue by the CIT under s. 263 on 23rd March, 2004, subsequently, the CIT could not have made an about-turn and held that interest income was assessable on receipt basis and, in any case, such an action was impermissible having regard to the limited scope of rectification envisaged under s. 154 of the Act. 5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has at the outset relied upon the order of the CIT passed under s. 154 of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that subsequent to the action under s. 263 dt. 23rd March, 2004 for asst. yrs. 1994-95 to 1999-2000, CIT noted that certain amount of interest which pertained to the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court judgment, was the CIT empowered to reverse such an opinion by resorting to the limited scope of s. 154 of the Act? The answer is clearly no because there is no apparent mistake which has been made out by the CIT in his original order. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) has held that a mistake apparent on record must be one which is obvious and patent and does not envisage an element of debate. Much less a debate in the instant case, the original stand of the CIT under s. 263 dt. 23rd March, 2004 is based on Supreme Court judgment and the same remains unaltered. Therefore, it was beyond the power of the CIT to invoke the provisions of s. 154 and direct the AO i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
