9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Act, 1961, is filed by the Revenue seeking to compel the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court three purported questions of law. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. The dispute is regarding the investment allowance relating to the assessment year 1981-82 claimed by the assessee under section 32A(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt the allowance was correct as the law actually stood at the relevant time and the fact that retrospectivity was given to a subsequent amendment cannot be a ground for review or rectification. We are not able to agree with the submission made on behalf of the Revenue. When the law is amended with retrospective effect, the fiction is that all must proceed on the basis that the law at the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled to only Rs. 21,157 as interest. The Supreme Court observed : "At the time when the Income-tax Officer applied his mind to the question of rectifying the alleged mistake, there can be no doubt that he had to read the principal Act as containing the inserted proviso as from April 1, 1952. If that be the true position then the order which he made giving credit to the respondent for Rs. 50,603.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g part of section 18A(5) of the principal Act as from April 1, 1952, the conclusion is inescapable that the order in question is inconsistent with the provisions of the said proviso and must be deemed to suffer from a mistake apparent from the record." The above reasoning squarely applies to the facts of the present case and in relation to the exercise of power under section 154 of the Act. The T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
