TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 28
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn under section 139 of Income Tax Act? ii) Whether the facts and documents of the present case justify the impugned orders? iii) Whether the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not grossly erred in failing to judiciously consider the material question of non taxability of the sale proceeds as capital gain by also declining to remand back the matter to the Assessing Officer in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the authorities below under section 250(4) of Income Tax Act and whether resultantly the impugned order being made by material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction vested in the said authority under section 250(4) of Income Tax Act is sustainable in the eyes of law? iv) Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal has not grossly erred in failing to judiciously consider the material question of non taxability of the sale proceeds as capital gain by again declining to remand back the matter to the Assessing Officer in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the authorities below under Rule 28 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 of Income Tax and whether the consequently impugned order being made by material irregularity in exercise of ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o liability could be fastened on the appellant. An application was moved by the appellant in the pending appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant and passed impugned order dated 7.10.2011 under Section 250(6) of the Act, Annexure A.7 confirming the penalty of Rs. 50 lacs levied under section 221 (1) of the Act vide penalty order dated 30.12.2009, Annexure A.6. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal under Rule 47(1) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, "the Rules"). During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, an application for rectification of the order of the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act was also filed on 3.2.2012, Annexure A.8 by the appellant before the Assessing Officer which was dismissed vide order dated 16.2.2012, Annexure A.9. The appellant filed appeal against the said order before CIT(A) under Section 250(6) of the Act. Vide order dated 15.1.2014, Annexure A.11, the appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A). Still not satisfied, the appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal. An application for amendment of the grounds of appeal was also filed before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 23.5.2014, Annexure A.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act, the assessee could file a petition for revision within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him or date on which he otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier. But the assessee just chose not to adopt any of the courses for getting the revision of the claims. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee cannot be admitted and therefore rejected. 9.1 As regards other grounds, the order passed under section 143(1) by the AO created a demand of Rs. 67,31,830/- against the assessee, as the assessee did not deposit tax under section 140A of the Act. The return of income in the present case was filed on 26.3.2009 which was a belated return. The assessee had claimed as per column No.9(c) regarding tax paid i.e. self assessment tax of Rs. 63,31,260/- has been paid and tax payable as per column No.10 at page 2 of the return of income has been declared as nil. The case was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 20.10.2009 creating a demand of Rs. 67,31,828/- as the claim of the assessee regarding payment of self assessment tax of Rs. 63,31,260/- was found to be wrong since no taxes have been paid and wrong veri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e stated case laws rectification was sought against order under section 143(1) of the Act. The AO after placing reliance on the following case laws, rejected the application under section 154 being maintainable: 1)CIT vs. Keshri Metal P. Limited, (1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC) 2)Gammon India Limited vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 50 (Bom.) 3) T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkar Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) 4)CIT vs. Hero Cycles P. Limited, 228 ITR 463 (SC) 10.1 The AO further held that rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Mistake apparent from record must be obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasons on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Moreover, the documents outside the records and the law is impermissible when applying the provisions of section 154 of the Act. 11. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. 12. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The brief facts in the present case are that the assessee has suo moto filed his return dated 26.3.2009 for assessment year 2008-09 declar....