TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 794
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are as under :- 2. Before the Tribunal, the appellant had challenged the CIT-l's exercise of power of revision under section 263 of the Act and the consequent setting aside of the assessment order allowing the claim of the appellant under section 35 of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the appellant had claimed deduction of Rs. 3,26,1717- under section 35(l)(iv) read with section 35 (2)(ia) of the Act being the capital expenditure incurred on scientific research related to its business. Being satisfied with the claim made and consistent with the stand taken by the revenue in the earlier years, the assessing officer allowed the said claim made by the appellant. However, the CIT-1 invoking the provisions of section 26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for deduction under section 35(1)(iv) read with separate independent books of account in respect of the Research & Development Unit. Further, the Hon'ble Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessing officer erred in allowing the impugned deduction firstly without any discussion in the order and secondly without appreciating that the appellant failed to adduce any evidence to justify its claim. 6. The Hon'ble Tribunal failed to appreciate that there is no statutory provisions in the Act which required the maintenance of separate independent books of account in respect of the Research & Development Unit so as to be eligible to claim deduction under section 35(l)(iv) read with section 35(2)(ia) of the Act. The Hon'ble Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the face of the order, which requires rectification u/s. 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that there is no error in the order of the Tribunal and what learned AR of the assessee seeking is to review of the judgement in the guise of mistake without pointing out any mistake in the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Therefore there is no merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and hence the same may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties and considered the material available on record. We have also carefully considered the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal. We find ....