9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, even though Hosur, in which town, the assessee's industrial undertaking is located had ceased to be a notified backward area in the year 1986?" The appeal has been preferred against the order passed in M.P. No. 103/MDS of 1998 by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The brief facts necessary for filing the miscellaneous petition before the Appellate Tribunal arose in the following circumstances: The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal contending that the order of Commissioner of Income-tax holding that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, with a prayer to rectify the order of the Tribunal on the ground that a mistake had crept in the order of the Tribunal by not considering the circular issued in Notification No. 165 dated December 19, 1986 and in the list of backward areas, Hosur has been excluded from the eligible areas for the grant of exemption under section 80HH of the Act. The Tribunal considered the miscellaneous petition filed by the Revenue and held that Notification No. 165 dated December 19, 1986, was duly considered by the Appellate Tribunal, when it passed the order in the main appeal preferred by the assessee and no mistake had crept in the order of the Tribunal calling for rectification of its order. The Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case that more than one view is possible on the interpretation of section 80HH of the Act and there is no glaring mistake present in the order of the Appellate Tribunal requiring the Tribunal to rectify its order. Hence, we hold that the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed in the appeal does not call for any rectification. Further, the question of law framed by the Revenue has no relevance to the order, as the question has been framed challenging the finding rendered in the main appeal, as if the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in appeal is challenged in the present appeal. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
