9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench, dated February 26, 2003, in I. T. A. Nos. 1556, 1557 of 1994 relating to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 raising the following sub- stantial question of law : "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tri- bunal was right in holding that the rectification under section 154 is not allowable on the issue of carry forward o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked his jurisdiction under section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). How- ever, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the issue of carry forward allowance in computing the assessment was based on the provisions of section 115J of the Act and could be rectified under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he purview of a mistake of fact on the face of record and, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Act could not be sustained. Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has come on appeal before this court. 5. It is seen from the decision of the apex court in the case of Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2009] 319 ITR 208 (SC) that under similar cir- cumstan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer subsequently in the course of proceedings under the said section. It further pointed out that as far as the facts therein were concerned, the issue as to whether the subsidy was capital receipt or revenue receipt was decided in the decision of the apex court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
