9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining the assessee's income at Rs. 5,22,80,530/-, inter alia, allowing rebate of Rs. 1,22,15,102/- under section 88E of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated rectification proceedings and proceeded to pass an order under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 22.03.2013, wherein the rebate under section 88E of the Act was restricted to Rs. 86,50,500/-. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order passed under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 22.03.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A)-9, Mumbai. The learned CIT(A) vide order dated 08.01.2015 allowed the assessee partial relief only on the issue of rebate under section 88E of the Act, by directing the AO to allow rebate thereunder to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43(3) of the Act dated 22.03.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09, which has been partially upheld by the learned CIT(A) by the impugned order. According to the learned A.R. of the assessee, this technical issue was raised before the learned CIT(A), both at ground No. 1in the original grounds (extracted at para 1.2 of the impugned order of the learned CIT(A)) and by way of written submissions dated 22.10.2013, wherein the assessee had filed revised grounds and the same issues were raised contending that the AO had erred in law and on facts in revising the amount of rebate under section 88E of the Act under section 154 of the Act without appreciating that there was no mistake apparent from the record at grounds 1 and 3 thereof. It was submitted that a peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, the proceedings under section 154 of the Act invoked by the AO clearly amounts to a relook at facts and evidence resulting in a review of the order of assessment which is to be held as invalid and bad in law, since the issue involves debatable point of law and is consequently beyond the purview of the provisions of section 154 of the Act. In support of the proposition that the order passed by the AO under section 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 22.03.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 is to be held invalid and bad in law, the assessee placed reliance, inter alia, on the following judicial pronouncements: - (i) Banwari Lal Tlusyan vs. Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 115/Kol/2011 dated 05.08.2011) (ii) ACIT vs. Kedar Nath Agarwal (ITA No. 42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Kedar Nath Agarwal in ITA No. 421/Kol/2011 dated 14.10.2011 and Banwari Lal Tulsyan vs. ITO in ITA No. 115/Kol/2011 dated 05.08.2011, holding that the issue of disallowing the claim of expenses while recomputing the rebate under section 88E of the Act being highly debatable and beyond the purview of the provisions of section 154 of the Act; they therefore quashed the rectification order. In the case of Banwari Lal Tulsyan (supra) the ITAT, Kolkata 'A' Bench held as under at para 4 thereof: - "4. We find that the Assessing Officer has initiated rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act to re-compute rebate u/s 88E of the Act by disallowing the claim of expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for erring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
