9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated March 31, 1986 under section 154 of the Act by the Income-tax Officer in respect of the assessment order dated March 25, 1982 was barred by time on the ground that unamended provisions of section 154(7) were applicable?" The assessment year is 1979-80 and the relevant accounting period is December 31,1978. The assessment order was framed under section 143(3) of the Act on March 25, 1982. The Assessing Officer passed an order under section 154 of the Act for the purposes of reworking the depreciation allowance to which the assessee was entitled and the said order was made on March 31, 1986. The assessee challenged the rectification order before the Commissioner (Appeals) who, for the reasons stated in his order dated April 18, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be amended." The relevant provision after the amendment reads as under: "(7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed." Therefore, the Assessing Officer under the provision before the amendment was permitted to amend an order within the period of four years from the date of the order sought to be amended. As against that by virtue of the amended provision the period of limitation within which an order could be rectified stood extended inasmuch as the period of four years had to be computed from the end of the financial year in which the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication of the well-settled rule of law that limitation is a matter of procedure and unless there is something in the context or by express words the Legislature has expressed it, new period of limitation would always apply to pending proceedings as well..." This decision has been reiterated and followed in the case of CIT v. Balabhai and Co. [1980] 122 ITR 301 (Guj). In the light of the aforesaid settled position of law, the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the rectification order was barred by limitation is not correct. There is no indication in the context of the amendment Act, nor is there any express provision which would prohibit the assessing authority from passing an order of rectification within the extended period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
