MARLBOROUGH POLYCHEM LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE appeal being D.B. IT Appeal No. 38 of 2004 has been filed by the same assessee, challenging the order of the Tribunal dt. 19th Nov., 2003, dismissing the assessee's appeal and upholding the order, rejecting the application of the assessee for rectification of the mistake. This appeal was admitted on 29th Oct., 2004, by framing following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the AO in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act could have disallowed the claim laid by assessee to deduction under Sections 80HH and 80 -1 which involved a debatable question on which the difference of opinion exist? 2. Whether adjustment in the income returned by the assessee of the aforesaid claim to deduction amounted to mistake apparent on the face of record which the Tribunal was bound to rectify on the application being made?

(3.) THERE is yet another appeal, attached with this file being D.B. IT Appeal No. 4580 of 2004 DR(J), which has been filed against the order of the learned Tribunal dt. 4th June, 2003, passed in ITA No. 64/Jd/1998, though, by this order, three appeals were decided, two appeals of the assessee, being ITA Nos. 64 and 65/Jd/1998, and one appeal of the Revenue, being ITA No. 114/Jd/1998. This Appeal No. 4580 of 2004 has reported by the Registry as barred by 310 days.