9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. 2. The assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in construction activity mainly in specified irrigation projects. The return of income for assessment year 2008-09 was originally filed by the assessee on 17.9.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 8,74,91,700. A search and seizure action under S.132 was conducted in the case of the assessee company as well as its directors on 20.08.2009. Consequent to the said action, a notice under S.153A was issued by the Assessing Officer in response to which a return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 was filed by the assessee on 23.6.2010 declaring the same total income of Rs. 8,74,91,700, as declared in the original return. The return of income for the assessment year 2009- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowance made out of labour expenses for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 should be telescoped in the undisclosed income of Rs. 1,10,08,900, added for assessment year 2009-10, and the same having not been done by the Assessing Officer, the orders passed by him under S.143(3) read with S.153A of the Act suffered from the mistakes apparent from record, which were liable to be rectified under S.154. This stand of the assessee was not found acceptable by the Assessing Officer. According to him, a similar claim made by the assessee was already rejected during the assessment proceedings, and the disallowance out of labour expenses having been made to cover up the deficiencies found in the relevant bills and vouchers and the same having been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake which is obvious and not something which had to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible and a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from record, as envisaged by the !i0n'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009 319 ITR 208 (SC). 0 6 .2 In the present case, the MD of the company made a disclosure of Rs. 4 crores during the search & seizure operation on the basis of incriminating material found and to be found and the disclosure was made in the names of various persons including the appellant company and adjusting the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer in the case of the' appellant 'company against the discl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. Vs. CIT (219 ITR 208) relied upon by the learned CIT(A) in her impugned order, the decision rendered on a debatable issue cannot be treated as a mistake apparent from record, so as to rectify the same under S.154. As rightly held by the learned CIT(A) in this context, the rectification sought by the assessee vide applications filed under S.154 for both the years under consideration, was on a debatable issue, and even the learned counsel for the assessee has not been able to dispute this position. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), upholding the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under S.154 for both the years under consideration whereby he rejected the rectification sought by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
