TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate for the appellant-assessee. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - The assessee has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act" ) against the order dated 27.02.2007 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, Bench-B in I.T.A. No. 844/Chandi/2004 for the assessment year 1998-99. 2. The return of income was processed 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 paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed in the rectification application. 5. Aggrieved against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal submitting therein that the provision of Section 154 of the Act does not provide for rectification only when a mistake in the order is detected. The mistake has to be on the record of the case and the record would include everything on the case file i.e. the return, the evidence and the order are a part of the record. The mistake can be detected 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the record, which could be rectified by the Assessing Officer. 7. Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant argued that for the purpose of Section 154, the record does not mean the return of income and the assessment record of the same assessment year only. Since the provision had been made in the preceding year in respect of the arrears of salary payable to the employees and in the year under appeal, the assessee had made the payment out of the payment 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 Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as per the books of account, no debit was made to the profit and loss account in so far as the amount paid was adjusted against the provision made. 9. Therefore, it is evident that the assessee had not made a claim for the amount of Rs.7.00 crores either in the original return or during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee had also not filed revised return at any stage of proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. 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 Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of which any deduction could be claimed. Thus, the order of the Tribunal, disallowing the assessee's claim for deduction on account of loss in the chit fund was upheld. 13. After the above decision, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 154 of the Act to the assessee and vide order dated 13.2.1992 the order of assessment was rectified and the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs.74,205/-on account of loss in chit fund by debiting the amount to her profit and loss account, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut granting the relief. The application filed by the assessee for rectification for the grant of relief under Section 84 of the Act was rejected by the authorities. The writ petition filed by the assessee was also dismissed by this Court. On an appeal filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held as under:- "The jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to rectify mistake is wider than that provided in Order XLVII, rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. None the less, 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 omi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
