TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the provisions contained u/s 154 of the Act and only mistake apparent on record can be rectified. In the instant case, this is not a mistake apparent on record rather the issue was debatable and required to be decided on merit. So, we are of the considered view that the impugned issue decided by the AO u/s 154 is not rectification rather it amounts to reframing of the assessment without giving any reason. However, the revenue is at liberty to reopen the assessment in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the assessee has already been granted 100% deduction u/s 80-IC for AY 2010-11 vide order dated 15.07.2014 passed by CIT (A) which is not stated to have been challenged by the revenue. So, when the assessee has already been allowed 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dance with sub clause 8(ix) of Section 80 I(C). 3 The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law by not considering that the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80 I(e) was not allowable since there was no substantial expansion of plant and machinery of the undertaking or enterprises within the meaning of Section 80 I(C) Sub Clause(2) read with sub clause (4) and sub clause (8)(ix) of the I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice to the above 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law by not considering the basic position of law that assessee was not even entitled to the deduction allowed by the AO u/s 80 I(C) of even 30 % as the assessee does not satisfy minimum statutory requirement of expansion during the year as per Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation is required coupled with plurality of views. Refer Supreme Court in case of T.S. Balram vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, from cursory look to revenue's appeal grounds it is clear that instant rectification proceedings being very limited in scope, are used for reframing the assessment giving additional reasons which is not permissible u/s 154 of the Act. Refer Karnataka high court in case of CIT versus Mysore Breweries Limited ITA 72/2007 (Dated 9.04.2013) enclosed Basic records not consulted while passing impugned rectification order which vitiates entire action 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gning the order passed by the AO. 6. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Short question arises before the Bench to be determined in this case is as to whether the AO was empowered to reduce the deduction claimed by the assessee at ₹ 3,45,74,704/- under section 80-IC of the Act to ₹ 1,03,72,411/- @ 30% accepted u/s 143 of the Act by invoking the provisions contained u/s 154 of the Act. 8. Undisputedly, the AO has passed order dated 29.03.2012 u/s 154 of the Act summarily without perusing and discussing the record to find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
