TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the I.T. Act, 1961 when there was no change either in facts and/or in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers [1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ] gave a categorical finding that “A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record.” In view of the settled position of law, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of CIT(A) in the AYs under consideration and accordingly the same are hereby upheld dismissing the grounds raised by revenue in all the appeals under consideration. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved by AO that the total turnover for financial year relevant to the Asst.Year 2003-04 was Rs.l,55,93,071/-. Out of this total turnover, an amount of ₹ 1,19,06,207/- pertains to Job Work Charges and the balance pertains to Sales. Against the total turnover of. Rs.l,55,93,071/-, the assessee's income under the head income from Business works out to Rs.l,28,74,708/-. Out of this income, the assessee had claimed a deduction of ₹ 32,18,677/- (i.e. 25% of Rs.l,28,74,708/-) u/s.80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act). The above mentioned deduction was claimed on the profit earned out of job work charges also. AO was of the view that the said claim was not allowable as the deduction u/s.80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. AO held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessing Officer was not justified to re-appreciate and reinterpret the provisions of law and that the nature of the disallowance did not fall within the concept of mistake apparent from the record as defined by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR SO(Se) in the following words: A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. 7. After considering the submissions of assessee, ld. CIT(A) observed that eligibility of job work charges for dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r taking satisf ied the condit ions laid down under the respective provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961 as has been held while allowing the claim. iii) The claim that stood considered and allowed for the f irst assessment year in which the claim was made and accepted i.e. , assessment year 1998-99 has been claimed year af ter year taking into considerat ion the per iod of eligibility of 8 years. Accordingly the last assessment year for the claim was 2005-2006. iv) Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment year 2003-2004 invoking his supervisory jur isdict ion passed orders U/s.263 on 19/03/2008 direct ing the assessing off icer to disallow the claim of deduct ion of 25% that was considered and allowed on the sale of by product, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment records are crystal clear about the examinat ion of the claim and it acceptance by the revenue. iii) Appellant was served with a not ice issued U/s.154 dated 06/06/2011 in respect of the issue relat ing to the claim of deduct ion. This was on the premise that deduction cannot be allowed in respect of job work charges of the undertaking. This was based on an audit object ion of revenue audit. A detailed explanat ion has been submitted. The decisions relied upon by audit were not applicable to the appellant's facts and they are distinguishable. A copy of the explanat ion is enclosed to be read as par t and parcel of this statement of facts. iv) The assessing of ficer with a simple and bald observation reading as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth the parties and perused the material on record as well as the orders of revenue authorities. On going through the facts on record, it is an admitted fact that the claim of assessee u/s 80IB was allowed by the revenue authorities from AY 1998-99, which was the first AY in which assessee made its claim u/s 80IB. The benefit, of deduction available for a specified number of years on satisfaction of the conditions laid down as per the respective provisions of the Act once considered and allowed cannot be withdrawn subsequently and that too by recourse to the proceedings U/s.154 of the I.T. Act, 1961 when there was no change either in facts and/or in law. The Hon ble Supreme Court in case of ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 gave a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
