2007 (1) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....79 claiming further relief u/s 358 and 80J could not be considered to be a revised return for the purpose of justifying the ITO's proceeding u/s 144B?    2.   Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was no invariable rule of law that the return filed u/s 139(4) could never be revised?   3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the adoption of machinery procedure laid down in section 144B was not fatal and would not render the proceedings void and they could be saved by section 292B of the Income-tax Act?   4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holdi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce the difference in the income declared in the return originally filed and the loss claimed in the letter filed was more than Rs.1 lakh. The Assessing Officer, for the reasons recorded, held that since the amount of variation proposed to be made in the returned income was exceeding Rs.1 lakh, provisions of Section 144-B of the Act were applicable. Accordingly, in the process, a draft of the proposed assessment order was sent to the assessee on March 11, 1980. The objections received to the proposed assessment order on April 2, 1980 were forwarded to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (for short, 'the IAC'), who issued necessary order on August 26, 1980. The Tribunal rejected the plea of the assessee holding that mistake ca....