TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal orders excise liability deductions despite rejected claims, High Court emphasizes documentation standards</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Titaghar Paper Mills Co. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Titaghar Paper Mills Co. Ltd. - (1991) 97 CTR (Cal) 200 Issues:1. Rectifiability of mistakes apparent from the records under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961.2. Consideration of assessability of amounts recorded in accounts via tax credit certificate under s. 154.3. Justification of setting aside orders of ITOs and AAC.Analysis:Issue 1:The Tribunal referred questions regarding the rectifiability of mistakes under s. 154. The assessee claimed rectification due to an oversight in not claiming excise duty as a deduction. The ITO rejected the application, stating the claim was not raised during assessment or appellate proceedings. The AAC upheld the rejection, linking it to tax credit certificate adjustments. The Tribunal found the mistake apparent, directing the ITO to allow excise liability deductions for all years.Issue 2:The Tribunal also considered the assessability of amounts related to tax credit certificates. The AAC linked the rectification to exemption under s. 10(28), requiring verification of details. The Tribunal, citing the Volkart Brothers case, directed the ITO to consider the assessability of amounts recorded in accounts via tax credit certificates while allowing excise liability deductions.Issue 3:The High Court analyzed whether the mistakes were apparent on the face of the records. The Court noted the audited accounts formed part of the assessment records and rejected the argument that the ITO committed a mistake by relying on erroneous audited accounts. It concluded that there was no glaring mistake apparent from the assessment order, ruling in favor of the Revenue on all three questions.The judgment emphasizes the distinction between mistakes apparent from records and errors arising from the assessee's own oversight. It highlights the importance of proper documentation and the need for clear justifications in seeking rectifications under s. 154. The decision underscores the significance of accurate accounting practices and the limitations of rectification provisions under the IT Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 