TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 2, 1993. We have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, assisted by Sri S. D. Singh, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Shekhar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is doing the business of export of rugs and druggets. Under section 80HHC of the Act, profits derived by an assessee from the export of goods are to be excluded from its total income. The petitioner's assessment for the assessment year 1988-89 was initially made on March 16, 1989, in which no deduction under section 80HHC was allowed in respect of interest amounting to Rs. 8,92,226 earned on fixed deposit receipts which was taken to the profit and loss account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer discussed the petitioner's claim as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessment was set aside on the assessee's appeal preferred to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and a fresh assessment was made on December 26, 1990, in which again the assessee's claim was not accepted. Subsequently, by an order dated January 30, 1991, passed under section 154 of the Act, the Assessing Officer rectified the assessment at the instance of the petitioner and allowed deduction of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,92,226 under section 80HHC of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice dated February 2, 1993, under section 148 of the Act requiring the assessee to file a return of income as he had reasons to believe that her income for the said year had escaped assessment. The petitioner filed a revised ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e income for the year under consideration and, therefore, the proceedings under section 147 of the Act have not been validly initiated. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have contended that the sum of Rs. 3,92,226 that was earned as interest on the fixed deposit receipts could not be treated as profit arising from export of goods and, therefore, by excluding the same under section 80HHC of the Act, income to that extent had escaped 'assessment and that the Assessing Officer rightly initiated proceedings for reassessment. The counter affidavit is silent about the assessee's allegation that though the assessee was intimated that its case will be taken up for hearing on February 1, 1994, the assessment order was passed a day before. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. Yet the Assessing Officer rectified the assessment by excluding Rs. 3,92,226 from the taxable income under section 80HHC of the Act. This was a patently wrong order and the remedy lay either by rectifying the same under section 154 or by invoking the Commissioner's jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, but the Assessing Officer has adopted a queer way to exercise a power of review under the garb of a reassessment under section 147 of the Act. It is settled law that an Income-tax Officer has no power to review his order and he could not do so in the purported exercise of the authority under section 147 of the Act. The mere fact, that for another year, the Tribunal had taken another view on the facts relating to that year, could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
