TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the issue as to whether the labour charges, miscellaneous income and sale of materials are part of business income or not for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HH is a debatable issue and the same cannot be decided in the rectification proceedings under Section 154." 2. The facts of the case culled out from the statement of facts filed by the Revenue goes as follows: The assessee is a Private Limited Company whose return for the assessment year 1997-1998 was processed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). As gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case, an Assessment Order, which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case, by order dated 15.3.2005, passed the following order:- "3.2. The rival submissions have been considered. The appellant filed copies of CIT(A)'s order and the case law cited supra before me during the course of appellate proceedings and I have perused the same. The CIT(A)-VI, Chennai in its ITA No. 13/1999-2000 dated 1.10.1999 has decided the issue in favour of the appellant. In his order, the CIT(A) has stated as under: "I have found that the excess capacity of the industrial undertaking of the appellant company was utilised by the appellant in processing the raw materials brought in by the customers mainly group companies who did not have much facility, and for conversion of such raw materials, the appellant received substan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the suo motu power, after service of notice to the assessee, passed an order revising the taxable income by modifying the deductions claimed by the assessee under Section 80HH of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax, allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee and found that the deduction claimed under different heads by the assesseee are allowable. On further appeal, the Tribunal, on the question of jurisdiction to re-open the assessment on the ground of rectification of mistake, held that the restriction in the deduction under Section 80HH proposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act was not at all a mistake apparent from record and rather, it was quite debatable. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r alia, states that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income charged to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer subsequently in the course of proceedings under the said section. 7. It is well recognised law that any erroneous assessment cannot be the subject matter for rectification under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The erroneous order of assessment can be rectified only under procedure known to law by carrying the matter before the appropriate authority by way of appeal to rectify the erroneous order or revise it as per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he officer, who succeeded the previous officer should not have undertaken the exercise of revising the order issuing notice under Section 154 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the revised order dated 30.3.2004 passed by the Assessing Officer is in violation of the order dated 20.9.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 9. Further, the assessing authority has no authority to revise the assessment order is the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in T.S.Balaram v. Volkart Bros [(1971) 2 SCC 526]. In the said case, the Supreme Court, after considering the fact that the mistake rectified was not an error or mistake apparent on the face of record, observed as follows :- "5. .... A mistake apparent on the rec....