2003 (12) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5,40,414. The Commissioner of Income-tax considered the above assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue inasmuch as the Assessing Officer did not exclude certain accounts, transport receipts amounting to a sum of Rs. 27,62,982 and interest amounting to Rs. 1,41,878 as the income from the assessee's total income for the purpose of allowing deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act. The said authority invoked the jurisdiction vested in him under section 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order with the directions to the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....preferred by the assessee was allowed the application forming the subject-matter of R.A. No. 49/Ind of 1998 was filed by the Revenue for referring the following questions to this court for its opinion: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax lacked jurisdiction to revise the order of assessment under section 263 of the Income-tax Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the issue of excess deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I contained in the order under section 143(3) was merged with the order under sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Vippy Solvex Products P. Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 587 (MP). We have heard Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel for the appellant, and Mr. L.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the assessee. It is submitted by Mr. Arya that the Tribunal has erred by not taking into consideration section 263(1)(c) of the Act and hence, refusal by the Tribunal to refer the questions of law to this court is absolutely erroneous. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, per contra, has contended that after the order of assessment was passed by the Assessing Officer section 154 of the Act was in vogue in rectification of the mistake and after such an order came into force the doctrine of ....