SALEM COOPERATIVE SPG. MILLS LTD. VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
1999 P T D 3419
[230 I T R 139]
[Madras High Court (India)]
Before A. Abdul Hadi and N. V. Balasubramanian, JJ
SALEM COOPERATIVE SPG. MILLS LTD.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Tax Cases Nos.377 and 378 of 1984 (References Nos.326 and 327 of 1984), decided on 12/02/1997.
Income-tax---
----Rectification of mistakes---Limitation---Meaning of "order", in S. 154--- Order does not refer to original order---Original assessment order passed on 17-12-1974 and revised assessment order passed on 14-8-1978---Order of rectification passed on 13-12-1979 was not barred by limitation---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.154.
The word "order" in the expression "from the date of the order sought to be amended" in section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not qualified in any way. It does not necessarily mean the original order; it could be any order, including an amended or rectified order:
Held, on the facts, that the orders of assessment for both the assessment years 1972-73 and 1974-75 were passed on December 17. 1974, and the original assessment orders contained certain mistakes on the question whether the deduction should be carried forward from the earlier years. There was a subsequent order rectifying the assessment orders. The revised assessment orders were made on August 14, 1978, and in the revised assessment orders dated August 14, 1978, the same mistakes, which had occurred in the original assessment order, were found and the Income-tax Officer therefore, rectified this mistake by his order, dated December 13, for both the years. For the purpose of computing the limitation period under section 154 of the Act to rectify the mistake, the order, dated August 14, 1978, should be taken into account. The order of rectification passed on December 13, 1979, was within four years from the date of the order passed on August 14, 1978, prescribed under section 154 of the Act. It was not barred by limitation.
Hind Wire Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 212 ITR 639 (SC) rel.
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for the Assessee.
C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner
JUDGMENT
N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.---At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has referred the following common question of law for the assessment years 1972-73 and 1974-75 for the opinion of this Court:
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case an assessment order made to give effect to an appellate order completely supersedes the original assessment order and a rectification of a mistake which appeared in both the assessment orders could be taken as a rectification of only the fresh assessment order and, therefore, made within the period of limitation?"
The orders of original assessments for both the assessment years were "passed" on December 17, 1974, and the original assessment orders contained certain mistakes on the question whether the deduction should be carried forward from the earlier orders. There was a subsequent. order rectifying the assessment orders. The revised assessment orders were made on August 14, 1978, and in the revised assessment orders, dated August 14, 1978, the same mistakes, which had occurred in the original assessment order, were found and the Income-tax Officer, therefore, rectified this mistake by his order, dated December 13, 1979, for both the years.
The contention of the assessee before the assessing authority was that the period allowed under section 154 of the Act for making a rectification has to be computed from the date of original assessment order, i.e., December 17, 1974, and not from the order passed on August 14, 1978. The assessee did not dispute that there was a mistake, which could be rectified in the rectification proceedings. The only question that was raised was whether the order of the Income-tax Officer rectifying the mistake was within time. The Assessing Officer considered the objections of the assessee and held that the rectification was made within the period of limitation prescribed under section 154 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the contention of the assessee and held that the order of rectification was barred by time.
The Appellate Tribunal, on appeal by the Revenue; however, did not agree with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and held that as soon as the rectification order of assessment was passed on August 14, 1978, the earlier order stood superseded and the only order which was in force was the order, dated August 14, 1978, passed by the income-tax Officer to give effect to an order of the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, held that the order of rectification passed on December 13, .1979, was within four years from the date of the order passed on August 14, 1978, prescribed under section 154 of the Act. It is this order that is the subject-matter of the tax case reference before this Court.
At the time of hearing the tax cases, Mr. P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee, fairly brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1995) 212 ITR 639, wherein the Supreme Court has held as under (headnote):
".... Since the word 'order' in the expression 'from the date of the order sought to be amended' in section 154(7) was not qualified in any way, it did not necessarily mean the original order; it could be any order including the amended or rectified order. The view taken by the Tribunal was the correct one and the High Court was wrong in setting aside the decision of the Tribunal."
The order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that for the purpose of computing the limitation period under section 154 of the Act to rectify the mistake, the order, dated August 14, 1978, should be taken into account is in conformity with the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case cited supra. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in the view it has taken that the order of rectification under section 154 of the Act was passed within the period of limitation provided under section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
M.B.A./3110/FC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.