Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2007 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (4) TMI 402 - AT - Income TaxIncome escaping assessment - Application u/s 154 - Rectification of mistakes - Validity Of Assessment u/s 147 - Assessee’s case is in respect of depreciation on current investment - As per RBI Guidelines, the current investments have to be valued at cost or market price whichever is lower and fall in value is termed as depreciation i.e., loss on revaluation - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the CIT (Appeals) himself has stated that it is a review order. Moreover, in the concluding paragraph, the CIT (Appeals) has held that ‘To conclude the appellant’s appeal on the point of depreciation on current investment for assessment year 2000-01 is allowed through this revision order’. Section 154 is concerned, it does not give power of review to any tax authority. It is clear from the decision, in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros.[1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] that what can be rectified u/s 154 is the error which is apparent on the face of the record and mistake apparent from the record. If the issue is debatable, then the tax authority has no jurisdiction to grant relief u/s 154. Admittedly, both the decisions i.e., United Commercial Bank’s case [1999 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] and Nedungadi Bank Ltd.’s case [2002 (11) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT] are relating to the banking companies and not relating to the non-banking financial companies. The first question will be whether the ratio of the said decisions is applicable to the non-banking financial company. In our opinion, this is a debatable issue. Moreover, on the perusal of the order of the CIT (Appeals), we find that the CIT (Appeals) has reviewed his own order u/s 154 and that is not permissible. We, therefore, cancel and set aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) and allow the revenue’s appeal. Validity Of Assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT:- Nothing has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer that he had some other information and the Assessing Officer has proceeded to complete the assessment on the basis of notice issued u/s 148 only from the return of income filed by the assessee. The ld. CA further submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has rightly cancelled the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with section 147. In the present case also, the time-limit for making general enquiry u/s 143(2) has express as Assessing Officer has to serve the notice on the assessee within a period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished. Hence, the Assessing Officer should have served the notice on the assessee on or before 31-10-2002. In our opinion, the principles laid down in the case of Travancore Cements Ltd.[2006 (9) TMI 174 - KERALA HIGH COURT] are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as what the Assessing Officer has done u/s 147 is the regular assessment which he could have done u/s 143(3). In our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue. The revenue has also taken grounds on merits. As we have held that the proceedings initiated u/s 147 by the Assessing Officer are without jurisdiction, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the grounds raised by the revenue on merits. In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed.
|