| |
| The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 1482 (Bang-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254
Where there was no observation in orders of tax authorities about non-realisation of export proceeds altogether, as observed by Tribunal, i.e., it is nobody's case that assessee did not realize export proceeds at all and cases of erroneous understanding/application of law/principles on the facts available on record were held to be outside scope of section 254(2), Therefore, incorrect appreciation of facts and consideration of facts relating to assessment year 2009-10 for deciding the issue in assessment year 2008-09 had resulted in a mistake apparent from record.
|
Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification of mistake under section 254 - Deduction allowed under section 10A -
This miscellaneous application was filed by assessee submitting that there was mistake apparent from record in the Order passed by Tribunal. Assessee had claimed deduction under section 10A on the total export turnover. Assessee had not received the export proceeds, out of turnover cited within the time prescribed under section 10A. Assessee had submitted before AO that it had submitted request for extending the time limit to bank and had not received formal approval from RBI. Accordingly, extension should be deemed to have been granted and hence said amount need not be reduced from amount of export turnover while computing deduction under section 10A. However, AO had reduced the export turnover by a sum while computing deduction under section 10A. Tribunal came to the conclusion that disallowance under section 10A was justified. Tribunal had misunderstood the facts relating to the said issue and it was nobody's case that deduction under section 10A has to be allowed on unrealized amounts. Held: There was no observation in the orders of the tax authorities about non-realisation of export proceeds altogether, as observed by the Tribunal, i.e., it is nobody's case that the assessee did not realize export proceeds at all. The cases of erroneous understanding/application of law/principles on the facts available on record were held to be outside scope of section 254(2). It was a case of incorrect understanding of facts. Accordingly, incorrect appreciation of facts and consideration of facts relating to assessment year 2009-10 for deciding the issue in assessment year 2008-09 has resulted in a mistake apparent from record.
Relied:Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC) : (2007) 165 Taxman 307 (SC) : 2007 TaxPub(DT) 1553 (SC), Wipro Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 382 ITR 179 (Karn-HC) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 0327 (Karn-HC), CIT & Anr. v. Mc Dowell And Company Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 215 (Karn-HC) : (2009) 177 Taxman 317 (Karn-HC) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 378 (Karn-HC), Asstt. CIT v. ITO 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2467 (Del-Trib) and Gowthami Associates v. ITO (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 192 (Bang-Trib) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1411 (Bang-Trib).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2008-09 & 2009-10
IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|