Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (11) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2. Whether a successor-Appellate Assistant Commissioner can entertain an application under section 154 for adjudication of the same question ?" We have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the Commissioner, and Sri R. S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent. The Income-tax Officer made an assessment of the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,42,710 by an order dated March 7, 1972. The total income included an income of Rs. 52,952 as income from property. The assessee claimed relief under section 80K of the Act in respect of certain dividends received from J. K. Synthetics Ltd. This claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had failed to produce the required certificate under section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uld be Rs. 52,952. Sub-section (2) of section 80A has prescribed the limit of deduction. According to this sub-section, the aggregate amount of deductions under this Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shall not, in any case, exceed the gross total income of the assessee. In the instant case as the gross total income is only Rs. 52,952 is allowed a deduction of Rs. 52,952 which will reduce the gross total income of Rs. 52,952 to a nil figure of the total income." The assessee moved an application under section 154 of the Act for rectification of the mistake stating that it was wrongly mentioned in the appellate order that the total income was Rs. 52,952 while actually the total income was Rs. 2,42,710. This application was rejected .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ome from other sources 2,47,259 (iv) Income from capital gains 22,313 ------------------ 2,42,710 ------------------ The appellant was entitled to a deduction of Rs. 4,03,797 under section 80K being the amount of tax-free dividend received from the J. K. Synthetics Ltd. but as this deduction was claimed under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the provisions of sections 80A and 80B are very relevant. Hence, these are reproduced hereunder: '80A. (1) In computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the deductions specified in sections 80C to 80U. (2) The aggregate amount of the deductions under this Chapter s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... presentative that there is no bar for filing petitions one after the other provided they are within limitation under section 154 for rectification of mistake. The mistakes should be that apparent from the face of the record and they did not require any fresh investigation of facts and did not involve any debatable issue. In this case, we agree with the contention of the assessee's representative that the mistake was only in regard to figures of income assessed on which the assessee was entitled to relief. This figure as mentioned in the assessment year and also on the top of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order was Rs. 2,42,710. The assessee was entitled to relief on this figure. If by mistake the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner rejected the same holding that there was no mistake and his predecessor had deliberately taken the figure of gross total income at Rs. 52,952 and there was no mistake through inadvertence or oversight. This order having not been appealed against, became final and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who succeeded the earlier officer, could not entertain a second application under section 154 and allow the same by reviewing his predecessor's order. Learned counsel for the assessee, Sri R. S. Agarwal, has not been able to show us any authority which might support the conduct and the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in passing the second order under section 154. In our view, the first application having been dismissed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates