Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
S. Zoraster & Co. vs Ito on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: (1992)42TTJ(JP)636
ORDER
UNDER S. 263--Typographical mistake Ratio:
Merely typrographical mistake in mentioning the assessment year would not affect the real controversy and such mistake should be ignored.
Held:
The Commissioner intended to disallow the bad debts in assessment year 1982-83 and the mention of assessment year 1981-82 in place of assessment year 1982-83 was purely a typographical mistake committed by inadvertence and in good faith. Such a mistake does neither affect the real controversy nor does it make any confusion in the order under appeal. The facts of the case, the issue involved, the decision given and the reasons recorded for the decision on the point remaining into no confusion the said typographical mistake is liable to be ignored for adjudicating the real controversy between the parties and is so ignored. The order allowing bad debts which was directed to be made by the Commissioner is upheld.
Application:
Also to current assessment years.
Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 Revision under s. 263--LIMITATION--Amendment of s. 263(2) w.e.f. 1-10-1984 Ratio:
Revision of assessment order of 7-6-1984 and 7-2-1985 was not time barred on 30-3-1987 in view of restrospective amendment of section 263(2) inserted from 1-10-1984.
Held:
Assessments for assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 were made on 7-6-1984 and 7-2-1985 respectively. Both were revised on 30-3-1987, i.e., well within the period of two years from the end of financial year 1984-85 on 31-3-1985. The amendment in question had already come into force on 1-10-1984 when the period of two years, as prescribed by the amended provisions of section 263(2) had not yet expired.
Case Law Analysis:
Addl. CIT v. Watan Mechanical and Turning Works (1977) 107 ITR 743 (AP)(FB) relied on.
Application:
Also to current assessment years.
Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 Revision under s. 263--ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL ORDER--Repair and maintenance of cinema building allowed as revenue expenditure Ratio:
Order allowing repairs and maintenance of cinema building as revenue expenditure is not erronous and prejudicial order.
Held:
The very nature of assessee's business would require incurring of expenses on repairs of the building, furniture, fittings and fixtures. All along the assessee had been incurring considerable expenditure in the past on such items and the department allowed these expenditure to it in past. It cannot be said that, no part of such expenditure had been capitalised and the Income Tax Officer had ignored that fact. That apart, the Commissioner has not pinpointed any particular item of expenditure which he considered to be of capital nature. There is nothing on record to show that the expenses amounting to Rs. 1,10,500 capitalised in assessment year 1981-82, did not relate to the fixture of 349 seats/chairs in the auditorium and the creation of a new class circle. The assessments as made by the Income Tax Officer on that point were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and, therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in revising the same to the prejudice of the assessee.
Application:
Also to current assessment years.
Income Tax Act 1961 s.263 Income Tax Act 1961 s.37(1)