- (1.) Following questions have been referred for opinion of this court by the Income-Lax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, arising out of its order dated 11-4-1996 in ITA No. 1385/Chd./1994, for the assessment year 1992-93: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that prima facie adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) is not permitted by law, when on the face of the statement of accounts, it was clearly a wrong claim of the assessee
(2.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that income from non-trade investment forms part of profit from business or profession for the purpose of deduction under Section 80HHC 2. The assessee filed its return for the assessment year 1992-93 on 31-12-1992, claiming deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short, 'the Act'). On 11-3-1994, the assessee filed revised return reducing claim under Section 80HHC of the Act. The assessing officer issued notice dated 17-12-1993 under Section 143(2) of the Act and, thereafter, sent intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 11-1-1994 before filing of the revised return, treating non-trading investment as income from other sources, creating demand for additional tax. The assessee made an application under Section 154 of the Act for rectification, which was rejected and appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal, however, accepted the plea of the assessee and held that having issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act was not permissible.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the revenue submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to law but in support of his arguments, no provision or judgment has been cited.;