High Court Of Punjab & Haryana
CIT vs. Sunder Dass Setia C & P Factory
Sections 4, 80-I, 80M, SURTAX SCH. II, SURTAX RULE 1(iii)
Asst. Year 1971-72, 1972-73
V. Ramaswamy, C.J. & G.R. Majithia, J.
IT Case No. 90 of 1981
23rd August, 1988
Counsel Appeared
L.K. Sood, for the Revenue
V. RAMASWAMY C, J. :
We are satisfied that the following three questions of law do arise from out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the same to this Court for its opinion :
” 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the mistake of not calculating the capital as on the first day of the previous year when the assessment order was passed, for the purpose of computation of deduction admissible under s. 80J, is not a mistake apparent from record which can be rectified by the ITO under s. 154 ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the issue of computation of capital employed as on the first day of the previous year for the purpose of computation of relief under s. 80J is a contentions one in which there can be two opinions and, therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the recorded rectifiable by the ITO ?
In any case, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in setting aside the ITO’s order under s. 154 considering particularly the provisions of s. 80J (1A) inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1972 ? “
[Citation : 176 ITR 298]
