TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case in sustaining the order of the assessing officer rejecting the application made by the assessee u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the order of the assessing officer disallowing expenses u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D under normal provisions and u/s 115JB. 3. The brief, facts of the case are as under:- The appellant company is engaged in the business of providing information technology related services to various companies. The appellant vide letter dated 29.04.2015 submitted the copy of petition for rectification filed by them in its case for AY 2005-06. The appellant vide this letter stated that the order passed by the Assessing Offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-042013, 16-07-2013 u/s. 154 for rectification of order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A to cancel the assessment since the same was bad in law. The contention of the assessee was an order u/s. 2451)(4) dated 19-02-2008 was passed 'by the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Mumbai for the assessment year 1999-2000 to 2005-2006, (Page No. 16 to 29) the said order was conclusive and final u/s.245-I and any proceedings in respect of the impugned years was statutorily prohibited to be reopened under the Income Tax Act or under any other law. The assessing officer has rejected the application against which the assessee has filed an appeal. We have to submit that the order passed by the assessing officer is bad in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss activities." Further, we wish to draw your attention to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Neeru Agarwal vs. Union of India and others quoted in 330 ITR 422 wherein it has held as under: Para 29 "In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that after passing of the order dated March 31, 2008 by the Settlement Commission, no power vests in the assessing authority or any other authority to issue the impugned notice in respect of the period and income covered under the order of the Settlement Commission. In case of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, the remedy is to approach the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission, by paragraph 7 of its order, has not and could n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever, if the Supreme Court has construed the meaning of a section, then any decision to the contrary given by any other authority must be held to be erroneous and such error must be treated as an error apparent on the record. (See Poothundu Plantations (P) Ltd. Vs. Agricultural Income Tax Officer, (1996) 9SCC 499) Error means that must be such as would be apparent on mere looking of the record without requiring any long-drawn process of reasoning. An error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (See MeeraBhanja vs. Nirmala Kumar Choudhury, (1955) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....". 5. Thereafter the Ld. CIT(A) referred to several case laws. He proceeded to hold that issue was debatable and hence concluded as under:- "A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. The power of rectification u/s 154 of the Act cannot be understood to review, revise or re-consider the substantial decisions, taken after due consideration of law and facts. In a nut-shell, mistake apparent from record, u/s 154 of the Act must be self evident, obvious and patent mistake of facts or law, which is floating on the surface of the record and not the mistake which can be discovered or discerned or established by way of discussions, debate and investigation into the issue." 6. Against the above order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 96[and for the relevant assessment year or years] referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made 96[and for the relevant assessment year or years] : Thus, reopening u/s 153A in case of assessee covered u/s 245-I is not provided in the Act. In these circumstances, we fail to understand as to....