2018 (7) TMI 932

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act''). 2. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of garments had filed its return for the impugned assessment year disclosing income of A5,64,470/-. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, assessee had preferred a wrong claim of A2,10,754/- u/s.80HHC of the Act and this was allowed by mistake. As per the ld. Departmental Representative, the claim being not allowable, the assessment was rectified through an order passed under Section 154 of the Act on 24.04.2007. However, as per the ld. Departmental Representative, assessee carried the matter before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and later this Tribunal and the appellate authorities held the rectif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....volved legal issues. Thus, admittedly, there were parallel proceedings both u/s.154 as well as 147 of the Act. It might be true that order passed u/s.154 of the Act was overturned by the appellate authorities. However, there were two different proceedings u/s.147 and 154 of the Act on the same issue and this has not been disputed by the ld. Departmental Representative. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while holding in favour of the assessee had relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. E.I.D Parry Limited, (1995) 216 ITR 489. What was held by their lordships in this judgment is reproduced hereunder:- ''The crucial expressions for the exercise of two jurisdictions, one for the reopeni....