Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)Btx Chemical Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 July, 2006
4 itl2.17.odt
On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and
on a perusal of the orders passed by the authorities, it appears that
there is no scope for interference with the orders of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, in this appeal. For the assessment year under
consideration, the assessee had shown the date of commencement
of production in Form 56F, as 01.06.1999. The assessee had not
concealed the date of production or had not made any mistake in
pointing out the same. The authorities, therefore, rightly held that
the assessee had not concealed anything and not stated any
incorrect particulars of income in the years under consideration.
The assessee had claimed the benefit under Section 10A of the Act
under a bona fide belief that since the deduction was not claimed
under the said provisions for the three assessment years i.e. 2006-
07, 2009-10 and 2010-11, the claim for deduction in the year
2010-11, being the 9th or the 10 year, could be claimed. Both the
authorities have concurrently found that claiming the deduction
under Section 10A of the Act by the assesses was a bona fide
mistake and the assessee had not concealed any material facts as
the assessee had clearly pointed out the date of commencement of
the production in Form No. 56F, as 01.06.1999. The authorities
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:31:31 :::
5 itl2.17.odt
had found that since the mistake committed by the assessee was
brought to the assessee's notice, the assessee unconditionally
withdrew the said claim and offered the said amount as income of
the relevant year and paid the tax on the same. We further find
that while holding in favour of the assessee, the tribunal has
considered the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of
BTX Chemicals vs. CIT, reported in (2007 205 CTR 252 (Guj).
Mak Data P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii on 30 October, 2013
The judgment in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner
of Income Tax-II, reported in 2013 CJ (SC) 1240 and relied on by
the counsel for the Revenue, cannot be made applicable to the
case in hand. In the present case, the assessee has tendered an
explanation which he was able to substantiate and prove to be
bona fide before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The
facts of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court are
distinguishable. The findings of facts recorded by both the
authorities cannot be lightly interfered with, in this appeal.
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1