AMOLAKCHAND KEWALCHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of a direction made by this court on July 13, 1982, in Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 539 to 542 of 1979 at the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has stated the case under Section 256(2) of the INcome-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"), and submitted the following question of law for our opinion :

(2.) IT came to the notice of the Commissioner of Income-tax that during the assessment proceedings pertaining to the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, the assessee-firm did not file any claim for deduction under Section 80J of the Act and no such claim was allowed in the orders of assessment. Subsequently, the assessee filed applications under Section 154 of the Act on December 9, 1974, July 25, 1975, and July 26, 1975, before the Income-tax Officer, for rectification of a mistake alleged to have occurred in the assessment orders by not allowing deduction under Section 80J. Acting on these applications, the Income-tax Officer rectified the relevant assessment orders on July 26, 1975, by allowing the deductions claimed by the assessee. In the opinion of the Commissioner of Income-tax, as there was no claim by the assessee in its returns of income or at the time of the assessment proceedings, there was no mistake apparent from the records of the relevant assessment orders justifying rectification under Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the rectification orders were set aside after notice and hearing given to the assessee. In appeals, the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax were upheld by the Tribunal. IT was held :

(3.) AS pointed out by the Tribunal, in its returns of income, the assessee made a claim for deduction under Section 80J of the Act, but did not furnish details about fulfilment of conditions laid down under Section 80J(4). The profit and loss accounts and the balance-sheets relied on by learned counsel for the assessee also did not disclose fulfilment of the requisite conditions under Sub-section (4) of Section 80J of the Act. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that there was any error apparent on the face of the assessment orders justifying rectification under section 154 of the Act.