9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocessed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15.3.1999 at an income of Rs.35,38,62,548/- after making various adjustments. It is relevant to mention here that during the financial year 1996-97 corresponding to assessment year 1997-98, the appellant had made a provision of Rs.7.00 crores for payment of arrears of the salary to the employees. Since it was only a provision and the exact liability had not been quantified, it was added back as income in the return filed and the amount of Rs.7.00 crores was taxed. In the next financial year i.e. 1997-98, the liability was quantified and an amount of Rs.4,99.37,406/- was paid during the next year i.e. 1998-99. Since the amount was paid out of the provision made in financial year 1996-97, it was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from anything on the file and therefore, the appellant is entitled for rectification as prayed for. The Commissioner of Income-Tax ( Appeal ) accepted the appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to give relief as claimed by the appellant after verification vide order dated 06.05.2004. 6. Aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals ), Chandigarh dated 06.05.2004, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal, wherein it was contended on behalf of the revenue that the decision of the Commissioner of Income-Tax ( Appeals ), Chandigarh was contrary to the well settled principles of law regarding the scope of provisions of Section 154 of the Act. It was further contended that the assessee never made a claim either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment of the salary and the same was liable to be deducted to the assessee on payment basis. However, inadvertently the assessee had failed to make the said claim in the return of income and this was a mistake, which is apparent from the record, which could be rectified under Section 154 of the Act. Shri M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the assessee placed strong reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Smt. Aruna Luthra, 252 ITR 76 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anchor Pressing ( P. ) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P. and others 161 ITR 159 in support of its case. 8. We have heard Shri M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the assessee and perused the record. We find no force in the argumen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; CIT (supra), held that deduction on account of any claim cannot be allowed to the assessee if such a claim is not made in the original return or unless a revised return is filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, this Court in case of M/s Mittal Alloys & Steels (supra) reiterated this principle. 10. The facts of the judgment of this Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Aruna Luthra ( supra ), relied upon by the counsel for the appellant, are distinguishable. The precise question, which was before the Full Bench of this Court in that case was "Can proceedings for rectification of an order passed under the provisions of Income-Tax Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount, was, thus, disallowed. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax ( Appeals ), Faridabad, vide order dated September 17, 1992. The assessee challenged the order before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and vide order dated July 5, 1999, the Tribunal took the view that the issue regarding the admissibility of the deduction was "debatable thus, it goes out of the purview of the provisions of Section 154." Aggrieved against the said order, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Court and maintains that in view of the decision of the jurisdictional of this Court, the Tribunal could not have held that issue was debatable. In the background of these facts, the following questions of law came up for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there must be material to support the claim for relief under Section 84 and unless such material can be referred to, no grievance can be made if the ITO refuses relief." 15. Thus, from the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the omission of the assessee to claim deduction on account of payment of the salary to its employees in the income tax return or during the course of assessment preceding is not a mistake apparent on the record of the case to which proceedings provision of 154 of the Act can be attracted. 16. Thus, even in this case, the claim of the assessee was declined as the assessee failed to show that all the material required for satisfying the conditions requisite for the grant of relief under Section 84 existed in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
