9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss. There was a search and seizure operation on October 17, 1994, the assessee filed a return of income disclosing the income of Rs. 18,17,420. Initially the assessment was made under section 143(1)(a) and thereafter a fresh assessment order was passed on December 27/30, 1996, on an income of Rs. 1,43,56,729 in addition to income of Rs. 45,737 from winnings from lottery under section 115BB of the Act. 3. The assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority disputing the quantum of assessment and also the liability of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 4. During the pendency of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndirect tax enactment or under any other law for the time being in force. Sub-section (4) of section 90 further provides that an appeal or reference for the said assessment year shall be deemed to have been withdrawn on the day on which the order referred to in sub-section (2) is passed, i.e., the day on which designated authority under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme issued certificate. 6. It further provides that the certificate can be withdrawn if it is found to be false by designated authority at any stage and in that case it shall be presumed that the declaration was never made and all the consequences will be deemed to have been revived. On the basis of the aforesaid pro vision it has been held that the notice issued by the assessing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct the assessing authority had no authority to sit over the certificate issued by the designated authority. 9. We are also of the view that whether after the issue of the certificate by the designated authority under section 90 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, the assessing authority had power to raise fresh demand of interest, is debatable issue where two opinions are possible therefore, it cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record and is outside the purview of section 154. The apex court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 has held that where two opinions are possible and the issue involved is debatable, it cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the face of the record. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
