TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns u/s 154 by AO – Held that:- Assessing Officer was wrong in rectifying the assessment order under Section 154 in respect of the relief granted earlier under Section 80HHA and 80-I on the reason assigned that the second unit was also functioning in the same - it is not necessary that the new industrial undertaking should be set up in a new premises - no justification for withdrawing the relief granted earlier - there is no patent or glaring mistake on the face of the record regarding the original assessment that warrants rectification under Section 154 – against revenue. - TAX CASE (APPEAL) NOS. 361 & 365 OF 2005 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2012 - D. MURUGESAN AND P.P.S. JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ. T.R. Senthil Kumar for the Appellant. Anita S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r issued notice under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that there is a mistake apparent from the record with regard to the relief granted earlier and withdrew the relief under Section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by that, the assessee filed appeals to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the appeals holding that the issue is a debatable one and therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the record. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue preferred appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal also confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. As against the said order, the present appeals have been filed before this Court r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961. On the last day of the previous year, the total value of the plant and machinery exceeds Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty five lakhs only). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in paragraph 5 of his order, considered the scope of the provisions under Section 80HHA of the Income Tax Act and held that the aggregate value of the plant and machinery do not exceed the limit as contemplated under the provisions. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was of the view that only total value of the plant and machinery of industrial undertaking, which manufactures or produces article should alone be considered. Therefore, for each assessment year, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the break up details of the each plant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal also taken the same view and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and came to a conclusion that there is no justification for withdrawing the relief granted earlier. Thus, it is the concurrent finding given by both the authorities that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rectifying the order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further it was held that there is no patent or glaring mistake on the face of the record regarding the original assessment that warrants rectification under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The finding given by both the authorities are in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
