AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was correct in exercising power under section 154 of the Act, when the facts as to the application of notification required investigation? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Notification No. S. O.1953 dated June 23, 1992, when it was not in existence on the first day of the assessment year, i.e., April 1, 1992? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that an industry, though, established in a rural area and also commenced its prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dmittedly the assessee had not fulfilled the requirement of Explanation (a)(ii) appended to section 80HHA. According to the Assessing Officer since the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while granting the benefit under section 80HHA to the assessee did not record any factual finding as contemplated by Explanation (a)(ii) nor took note of its requirement and hence, it amounts to an error apparent on the face of the order within the meaning of section 154 ibid requiring rectification of the order dated September 29, 1995. It is this application of the Assessing Officer made under section 154 of the Act which was entertained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). A notice of this application was issued to the assessee as to why this a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed an appeal before the Tribunal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In other words, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while passing the rectification order referred supra did not commit any mistake. It is against this order of the Tribunal, the assessee has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. As observed supra, the appeal was admitted on the aforementioned substantial questions of law. Heard Mr. S. C. Bagadia, learned senior advocate, with Mr. D. K. Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. R. L. Jain, learned senior advocate, with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....means any area other than- (i) an area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year; or (ii) an area within such distance, not being more than fifteen kilometres from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in sub-clause (i), as the Central Government may, having regard to the stage of development of such area (including the extent of, and scope f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income-tax (Appeals) or the Tribunal or even before this court that they satisfy the conditions as specified in column 3 quoted supra as per Explanation (a)(ii). In this view of the matter, one thing which is clear is that the appellant's factory (manufacturing unit) is not situated within the specified distance as per the aforementioned notification. The question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether in view of this admitted position, the assessee was still entitled to claim the benefit under section 80HHA. In our opinion, no. In order to claim any statutory benefit under any fiscal laws, it is necessary for an assessee to strictly comply with the statutory requirements prescribed under the Act. Failure to comply, resu....