TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorrect as the same is in compliance with section 143 – appeal by revenue is dismissed accordingly - - - - - Dated:- 7-9-2004 - Judge(s) : P. D. DINAKARAN., K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by K. Raviraja Pandian J.- This appeal filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in I.T.A. No.l300/Mds/94 dated February 28, 2003. The assessment year is 1991-92. For the abovesaid assessment year, the assessee has filed a return. While completing the assessment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Assessing Officer has made adjustments by adopting the written down value determined for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer adopting the written down value of the earlier assessment years for the purpose of assessment in respect of the assessment year 1991-92 by holding that while making a prima facie adjustment the Assessing Officer was expected to look into the return and its enclosures and if the Assessing Officer needs any further particulars he ought to have issued notice under section 143 of the Act. Without doing so he cannot take the written down value of the previous assessment year is incorrect. Any opinion other than the opinion as given by the Assessing Officer is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel relied on two decisions to support his contention. We heard lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical error in the returns or in the accounts or documents filed along with the returns in accordance with clause (a) of section 143 of the Act. By no stretch of imagination, the particulars available in the assessment order in respect of the different assessment years would be substituted for the present assessment year and that substitution can be stated to be a rectification of arithmetical error in the returns and accounts and documents referred to. The decision, which was relied on by the learned counsel is reported in Ram Nath Jindal v. CIT [2001] 252 ITR 590 (P H) wherein it was held that (headnote): "The Assessing Officer could not grant the benefit of depreciation when it was not claimed by the assessee. There was no provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cost to the assessee in the case of assets acquired during the accounting year. In the case of assets acquired before the accounting year, the written down value means the actual cost of acquisition less depreciation actually allowed while interpreting section 80J of the Income-tax Act 1961 and the Income-tax Rules, 1962, rule 19(A)(2)(i) " That case also would not in any way support the case of the Revenue to contend that while making the assessment under section 143(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer can substitute the material available outside the returns and other documents filed along with the returns to make a prima facie adjustment. Hence, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that while making the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
