TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (12) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government of Kerala undertaking, filed original return for the assessment year on December 31, 1992, declaring a taxable income of Rs. 50,48,761. This income included business income of Rs. 49,98,241 which was arrived at after claiming a deduction of Rs. 32,27,451 under section 36(1)(viii) of the Income-tax Act. The entire income declared was set off against brought forward losses relating to earlier years. Thereafter, the assessee filed another return whereunder the total income shown was Rs. 54,03,613 which again was completely set off against carry forward loss of earlier years. The income from business covered by the revised return was Rs. 53,53,096 which was computed after claiming deduction of 35,68,730 under section 36(1)(viii) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come escaping assessment under section 147 of the Act. The assessee, therefore, filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income-tax challenging the validity of the income escaping assessment completed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. Even though reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Jindal Photo Films Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1998] 234 ITR 170, the Commissioner rejected the revision petition and upheld the assessment by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO [1993] 203 ITR 456. It is against this revisional order of the Commissioner the assessee has filed this O.P. 3. I heard senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-assessee and senior standing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s based on which the decision relied on by the assessee are rendered by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. Admittedly, the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1) (viii) of the Act and the assessee by making the claim was trying whether the officer could be persuaded to commit a mistake and get the claim approved. The assessee initially succeeded because the officer accepted the return probably because the assessee being a Government of Kerala concern was not expected to make a bogus claim in the return filed. However, the question to be considered is whether the assessee can be the beneficiary of its own fraud or mistake and whether the Assessing Officer is prevented from correcting the same under section ....