TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 871X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order does not point any mistake of fact or application of any law. Hence, in our view there is no mistake apparent on record rectifiable u/s. 154 of the Act, therefore, we quash the orders of the authorities below and allow the deduction in dispute u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of the interest received from debtors and on fixed deposit with banks. See CIT vs. Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. [2002 (11) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 209/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2018 - SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : SH. SACHIN KUMAR, CA For The Revenue : SH. AMIT KATOCH, SR. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell as Id. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of interest from debtors and, on FDR was allowed in the assessment order after considering (vide para 10), the detailed submissions made by due Assessee vide letter dated 18-3.2013, in response to the query by the AO. b) The Id AC1T as well as Id. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 154 of the Act are applicable to the mistake, which is apparent, glaring, obvious, self evident or ex facie that it is uncapable of argument or proof; and are not applicable to debatable issues or when two view are possible, c) the ld. CIT as well as the Id. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the proceedings under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that since ample opportunities as well as time was allowed to the assessee to file its reply and proper reply was not submitted therefore, the rectification order is passed on the basis of the facts available on the record. The AO further observed that since the mistake is apparent from the record so he has no other alternate except to disallow the excess deduction of ₹ 22,70,984/- and added back the same to the income of the assessee and assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 2,49,96,694/- u/s. 154/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.11.2013. Against the aforesaid order dated 29.11.2013, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 09.12.2014 has partly allowed the appeal of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he parties and perused the records, especially the order of the authorities below. The ground no. 1 to 1.1 were not pressed, hence, the same are dismissed as such. The ground no. 2 3 are argued before us which are discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. We find that assessee is a partnership firm, engaged in the manufacturing of Aluminium alloy ingot from scrap and trading in Aluminium cooper, brass, zinc etc. Scrap. The assessee filed return of income claiming deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act at the rate of 25% in respect of income from manufacturing. The deduction claimed u/s. 80-IB of the Act included interest of ₹ 5,67,746/- being 25% of ₹ 22,70,984/-. During the hearing, the assessee was directed to explain why interest inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also been verified and examined vis-a-vis books of accounts presented by the AR of the assessee firm for examination during the assessment proceedings. 6.1 We also note that the deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act in respect of income from interest received from debtors on fixed deposits with banks was allowed in preceding years i.e. AY 2005-06 to 2008-09. However, the AO vide his order dated 29.11.2013 u/s. 154 of the Act disallowed deduction of ₹ 22,70,984/- u/s. 80-IB of the Act on the allegation that subsequently it revealed that the Assessee claimed excess deduction and Ld. CIT(A) in appeal has restricted the disallowance of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act to the amount claimed at ₹ 5,67,746/-. In view of above, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on various decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court has come to the conclusion, and rightly so, that since the question whether an assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-I or not, is debatable, the relief granted under the section could not be said to be a mistake apparent from the record, within the meaning of s. 154 of the Act. 3. While interpreting the scope of s. 154 of the Act, the Supreme Court in T.s. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), held that a mistake apparent on the record within the meaning of s. 154 of the Act must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
