Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, rejects revenue's appeal under section 154 of Income Tax Act

The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, ruling that it was a change of opinion rather than a mistake apparent from the record. The revenue's appeals for the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 were dismissed.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against orders dated 8.4.2008 passed by the ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 regarding deduction u/s.35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Summary:
The appellant, engaged in television production, initially declared a total income of Rs. 9,75,307. The Assessing Officer allowed a deduction of Rs. 79,79,314 u/s.35D, but later rectified the order u/s.154, withdrawing the deduction due to a perceived mistake. The ld. CIT(A) held that the rectification was not valid as it was a case of change of opinion, not a mistake apparent from the record. The revenue appealed, arguing that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in the rectification order u/s.154.

The ld. CIT(A) observed that a rectifiable mistake u/s.154 should not entail more than one opinion and must be patent on the face of the record. Since there were multiple views on record, the rectification u/s.154 was deemed inappropriate, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

During the hearing, the revenue contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition, while the assessee's counsel argued that the matter had already been considered in previous proceedings u/s.263 and u/s.147, making rectification u/s.154 invalid. The Tribunal noted the sequence of events, including the initial deduction allowed, subsequent proceedings u/s.263 and u/s.147, and the ld. CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of the proceedings u/s.147, indicating a change of opinion rather than a mistake apparent from the record.

Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the matter was a mere change of opinion, not a mistake apparent from the record, and upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The revenue's appeals for the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 were dismissed.

---