TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee Society and selling the same to Maharashtra State Co-operative Milk Federation, Mumbai. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 15.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 50,74,224/- after claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.06.11.2012 wherein the AO allowed the deduction u/s 80P of the Act claimed by the assessee and accepted the return of income. Thereafter, AO passed order u/s 154 of the Act vide order dt.30.09.2014 wherein he held that assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act and was only entitled to deduction of Rs. 50,000/- u/s 80P(2)(c) of the Act and thus according to him there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rules and regulation and by-laws of the appellant". 3. The case file reveals that on last occasion, none attended on behalf of the assessee though notice was served on assessee. On the date of present hearing also none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment application filed. Considering the fact that the issue in the present case is covered by various judicial pronouncements, we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. D.R. 4. The perusal of the grounds reveal that sole grievance of the assessee is its challenge about the rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act wherein the claim of assessee of deduction u/s 80P of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied therein. A mistake which can be rectified u/s 154 of the Act is one which is patient and obvious and whose discovering is not dependent on argument or elaboration. On the issue of the mistakes that can be rectified u/s 154 of the Act, we find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.M.T.C. Ltd., reported in [2000] 246 ITR 725 (Del) has observed as under : "A bare look at section 154 of the Act makes it clear that a "mistake apparent from the record" is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of section 154, the mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. "Mistake" means t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... argument or proof. As observed by the apex court in Master Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360, an error which is apparent from the record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. A similar view was also expressed in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [1960] AIR 1960 SC 137. It is to be noted that the language used in Order 47, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the CPC"), is different from the language used in section 154 of the Act. The power is given to various authorities to rectify any mistake "apparent from record" under section 154 of the Act. In the Civil Procedure Code, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification. On the facts of the present case, we find that there was no mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified under section 154 of the Act. The questions proposed deal with conclusions on the facts giving rise to no question of law." 8. In the present case, with the passing of rectification order u/s 154 of the Act, original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act will be substituted by the new order with denial of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act. This in our view is not permissible more so in view of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M.M.T.C. Ltd., (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed....