TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at- the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction at the time of passing the order under section 143(1A) of the Act and also at the time of passing the order under section 143(3) of the Act it was clearly a case of change of opinion. This could not be said to be a mistake apparent from the record and therefore, the provisions of section 154 of the Act, could not be invoked. The question as to whether the assessee was entitled for deduction or not, was a matter to be decided on the merit and could not be said to be an error apparent on record. - 415 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2009 - K. L. MANJUNATH and A. S PACHHAPURE JJ. M.V. Seshachala for the appellants. R.B. Krishna for the respondent. JUDGMENT The Judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch 31, 1998. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of rectification, preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of the Income-tax (Appeals) of Bangalore. The Appellate Commissioner holding that there were a number of judgments in respect of section 80HH of the Act, giving contrary views and that section 80-IA of the Act was similarly placed concluded with the matter with regard to whether the export incentive would qualify for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act was held to be highly debatable and, there fore, he set aside the order passed under section 154 of the Act and the Revenue being aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal to the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench and the said appeal also came to be dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be included in the profit of Rs.3,10,49,400 in respect of its unit at Hosur for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and it was beyond the purview of section 154 of the Act. It is also his contention that both the appellate authorities failed to appreciate that there was no debatable issue as such in respect of the assessee being entitled to deduction under section 80-IA of the Act over the export incentive, as the said incentive was given by the Central Government to encourage the exports and it is not an income earned by the industrial undertaking of the asses see. On these grounds, he has sought for setting aside the orders and the concurrent findings of the authorities below. 7. Per contra it is t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter must be beyond debate and in such circumstances, only the mistake committed could be amended. 9. The question as to whether the subject-matter is beyond debate and that whether it was a mistake apparent from the record, in this context, it is relevant to note that the hon'ble apex court in the decision in CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 took into consideration the export promotional scheme, where under the export entitlements became available, it held that there must be a nexus between the profits and gains and the industrial undertaking. Further, it observed that the nexus was not direct and it is only incidental. It also held that the assessee was entitled to import entitlements which it could sell and the sale cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
