Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.27 seconds)
Singhal Brothers vs Income Tax Officer on 21 June, 1999 cites

Mrs. Gladys S. Koder vs Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward on 6 January, 1974

4. On behalf of the Revenue, Shri Amba Sankar Dev, the Departmental Representative, submitted that the CIT(A) was fully justified in upholding the assessment, in view of the fact that the assessee had been granted excess relief under s. 80HHC and in that sense there was escapement of income. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the proceedings for rectification under s. 154 were entirely different from the proceedings for assessment of escaped income. It was open to the AO to issue notice under s. 148, to disallow the excess relief allowed by assessing the interest income under a wrong head. It was stated that in the appeal the CIT(A) had cancelled the order of rectification for the reason that there was no mistake apparent on record as the issue was debatable and that no variation of the computation under s. 80HHC could be effected in the order under s. 154. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Mrs. Gladys S. Koder vs. ITO (1976) 104 ITR 220 (Ker) to contend that the spheres of rectification and reassessment might sometimes overlap. It was his contention that in spite of the order of rectification under s. 154, it was open to the AO to issue the notice under s. 148 to bring to tax the same income that had escaped assessment. As regards the deduction under s. 80HHC, the learned Departmental Representative stated that the assessee had wrongly claimed deduction on the entire income including interest on bank deposits and that when the AO found that there was excess relief allowed to the assessee, he could assume the jurisdiction to issue the notice under s. 148, and so the CIT(A) had correctly upheld the assessment.
Kerala High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next