| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 3236 2003 SLD 3236 (2003) 265 ITR 479 |
Madras High Court
TAX CASE (REFERENCE) NO. 99 OF 1998 OCTOBER 28, 2002
N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
TAX CASE (REFERENCE) NO. 99 OF 1998 OCTOBER 28, 2002
N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
India Cements Ltd.
Law:
Section:
Section 154, read with section 43B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Rectification of mistakes - Apparent from records - Assessment year 1984-85 - Whether in a case where on facts more than one view is possible, it can be said that there is a mistake apparent from records, which calls for exercise of power of rectification under section 154 - Held, no FACTS The Assessing Officer found that in the original assessment no disallowance was made under section 43B on certain amounts collected by way of deposits. Subsequently, he initiated proceedings under section 154 on the ground that the deposits were collected towards the sale-tax, if any, payable by the assessee on the freight and packing charges and he rectified the mistake in the order of assessment on the ground that the assessee had agreed to the rectification. However, on appeal, both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal found that rectification proceedings were initiated with reference to an issue for which there was more than one view possible and, hence, it was a debatable issue. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taking recourse to section 154 to make disallowance under section 43B of the sales tax collected by the assessee which was shown as outstanding liability as on 31-3-1984. On reference : HELD The present case was the case wherein it could not be said that only one view was possible on the facts, as it was found on fact that more than one view was possible and in view of the same, it could not be said that there was a mistake apparent from the records which called for the exercise of power of rectification under section 154. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record and the ITO was not justified in taking the proceedings under section 154 to disallow the allowance that was granted in the order of assessment. Consequently, there was no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. [Para 2] T. Ravikumar for the Applicant. P.P.S. Janardhana Raja for the Respondent. ORDER N.V. Balasubramanian, J. - In compliance of the directions of this Court in T.C.P. No. 142 of 1996, dated…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492