| Case ID |
1abf08eb-7c34-4252-8bc7-16255ae5ca11 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL No. 219 OF 2004 |
| Decision Date |
May 15, 2006 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake apparent from the record under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The tribunal's view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in adjusting the loss from export of trading goods against the deduction under section 80HHC was overturned. The court ruled that if a mistake is evident from the record, it can be corrected within the framework of the law, provided that it meets the necessary conditions including the limitation period. The judgment emphasized that the rectification of mistakes should not be confused with debatable issues, as the latter cannot be corrected under section 154. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the rectification of a mistake made during the assessment year 1995-96 under the Income-tax Act, 1961, specifically sections 154 and 80HHC. The Assessing Officer initially allowed a deduction without accounting for losses from exports, which was later contested. The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the Assessing Officer had the authority to rectify the error, affirming that a mistake apparent from the record could be corrected without delving into debatable issues. This decision is crucial for understanding the limits of rectification powers under tax law, particularly in cases involving export losses and deductions. The judgment also highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions when assessing tax liabilities, which is vital for both tax authorities and taxpayers alike. The implications of this ruling are significant for future cases involving similar issues of tax deductions and rectifications, ensuring clarity in the application of the Income-tax Act. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
Adarsh Kumar Goel,
Rajesh Bindal
|
| Lawyers |
D.S. Patwalia,
P.C. Jain
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana
|
| Respondents |
Roxy Industrial Corporation
|
| Citations |
2008 SLD 3773,
(2008) 298 ITR 318
|
| Other Citations |
T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC),
CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC),
IPCA Laboratory Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 521 (SC),
CIT v. A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. [1997] 225 ITR 29 (Ker.),
CIT v. Harisons Malayalam Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 516 (Ker.),
CIT v. Forbes, Ewart & Figgies (P.) Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 94 (Ker.),
Rohan Dyes & Intermediates Ltd. v. CIT [2004] 270 ITR 350 (Bom.),
Yarn Syndicate Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2001] 79 ITD 189 (Cal.),
Lalsons Enterprises v. Dy. CIT [2004] 89 ITD 25 (Delhi) (SB),
Hero Cycles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2004] 84 TTJ (Chd.) 485,
Mangalya Trading & Investment Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 480 (Mum.),
ITO v. Chromatic Dyestuff Ltd. [2005] 94 TTJ (Mum.) 550,
ITC Ltd. v. Jt. CIT [2005] 4 SOT 320 (Kol.),
CIT v. Shirke Construction Equipments Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 429 (Bom.),
CIT v. Smt. T.C. Usha [2004] 266 ITR 497 (Ker.),
Satya Narayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale AIR 1960 SC 137,
K.M. Shanmugam v. S.R.V.S. (P.) Ltd. AIR 1963 SC 1626,
T.S. Rajam v. Controller of Estate Duty [1968] 69 ITR 342 (Mad.),
ITO v. S.K. Habibullah [1962] 44 ITR 809 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
154,
80HHC
|