TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee and came to a definite conclusion that the assessee is entitled for the deductions claimed under Section 80HH of the Act - The appeal is dismissed - 106 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 9-4-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO, MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. K. Subramanian For Respondent : Mr. R. Venkatanarayan for M/s Subbaraya Aiyer JUDGMENT ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. This Appeal is filed by the Revenue in respect of the assessment year 1997 98 against the order dated 29.11.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "A" Bench, Chennai in I.T.A. No. 1663/Mds/05 and was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income Tax came to the conclusion that the balance payable is Rs. 50,470/-. After passing this order, since an objection was taken by the Revenue audit, the Deputy Commissioner had once again taken the issue stating that deduction under Section 80 HH of the Act on some other incomes was wrongly allowed and since the same was required to be rectified, notice under Section 154 of the Act was given for rectification of the mistakes. Thereafter, after hearing the representative of the assessee, the order dated 14.3.2002 was revised on 30.3.2004 against which an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax, who, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, by order dated 15.3.2005, passed the following orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a manufacturing activity, entitling it to claim deduction as contemplated under sec. 80HH and 80I. 3.2.2. Respectfully following the same, I direct the Assessing Officer to allow exemption u/s. 80HH on the labour charges received by the appellant. The appellant succeeds on this issue." Against the said order, an appeal was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dated 29.11.2006 and the said order is impugned in this appeal. 3. Heard the argument of the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials on record. 4. In the present case, the Assessing Officer, by invoking the suo motu power, after service of notice to the assessee, pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. In the absence of giving any reason for revising the order, we do not know as to on what ground the Assessing Officer had come to a conclusion that the deduction claimed by the assessee does not fall under the purview of 80HH of the Act. If one examines the scheme of the Income Tax Act, as it stood at the material time, one finds a clear dichotomy between Section 154 and Section 147 of the Act. Section 154 deals with rectification of mistake. Section 154(1), inter alia, states that, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, an Income Tax Authority may amend any order passed by it under the provisions of the Act, whereas Section 147, inter alia, states that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2000, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), by order dated 20.9.2000, directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the income on certain heads under Section 80HH of the Act. The Assessing Officer instead of carrying the matter to the Tribunal by way of appeal, complied with the order of the Commissioner by passing the revised order dated 14.3.2002. When an objection was raised by the Revenue Audit, the Deputy Commissioner took up the matter stating that a mistake had occurred and accordingly, passed the order dated 30.3.2004 after issuance of notice under Section 154 of the Act. Therefore, merely because an objection was taken out by the Revenue Audit, the officer, who succeeded the previous officer should not have undertaken the exercis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he record see Sidhramappa v. CIT, Bombay (21 ITR 333). The power of the officers mentioned in Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to correct any mistake apparent from the record is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an error apparent on the face of the record . In this case it is not necessary for us to spell out the distinction between the expressions error apparent on the face of the record and mistake apparent from the record . But suffice it to say that the Income Tax Officer was wholly wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the first respondent." 10. The appellate authority while considering the appeal preferred against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
