ACIT, CIRCLE-42, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI RANJIT KR. SAHA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1629/KOL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 February 2018AY 2001-20024 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that a mistake apparent from the record includes the non-consideration of a Supreme Court decision. Rectification is mandated to remove errors and bring assessment orders in line with established legal propositions.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction under Section 80HHC on the profit from the sale of DEPB. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's rectification application. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, and the revenue appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC on DEPB sale profits, and whether a mistake apparent from the record can be rectified based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HHC,Section 154,Section 28

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi]

O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This appeal filed by the revenue directed against order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXX, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 24/03/2014.

2.

The assessee carries on the business of export of yarn to Bangalore. The issue is whether the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act on profit on sale of DEPB. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Topman Exports vs Commissoner Of Income Tax,Mumbai in CIVIL APPEAL No.1699 OF 2012, judgement dt. 8 February, 2012, held that the face value of DEPB would fall under clause (iiib) of Section 28 of the Act and the difference between the sale value and the face value will fall under clause (iiid) of Section 28 of the Act. Hence relief u/s 80HHC of the Act, should have been granted accordingly. The assessee moved an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, on 15th March, 2012. The Assessing Officer rejected the same vide letter dt. 20/03/2012. Earlier the assessee had filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, on the issue of deduction u/s 80G. This was accepted vide order dt. 28/04/2009.

3.

The assessee moved one more application u/s 154 of the Act on 02/04/2012, wherein it was submitted that a mistake apparent on record has crept into the assessment order and it has to be rectified by bringing the same in line with the propositions of law laid down in the case of M/s. Topman Exports vs Commissoner Of Income Tax,Mumbai (supra). This was rejected by the Assessing Officer vide order dt. 17/05/2012. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee.

3.1. Aggrieved the revenue is before us.

4.

After hearing rival contentions, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), held as follows:-

“(i) A mistake apparent from the record is one that is patent, manifest and self-evident and which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it; (ii) The non-consideration of a decision of jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court or of the Supreme Court is a “mistake apparent from the record” irrespective of whether such decision was rendered prior or subsequent to the rectification; (iii) A judicial decision acts retrospectively because it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a ‘new rule’ but to maintain and expound the ‘old one’. Judges do not make law; they only discover or find the correct law. A subsequent decision which alters the earlier one has to be applied retrospectively; (iv) Rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and to disturb the finality.”

5. Thus, the law mandates rectification by the Assessing Officer, in case the order of assessment is against the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is no bar on the number of rectification petitions that can be filed by the assessee on an assessment order within the time limits prescribed by law. Thus, we uphold the order of the ld. First Appellate Authority and dismiss this appeal of the revenue.

5.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →