TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder does not always decide the question of the validity, an order can be upheld or valid if there is a statutory provision to which it can be validly attributed and more importantly, the word order in the expression from the date of order sought to be amended finding place in the provisions of Sec.154 is not qualified in any other manner and it does not necessarily mean the original order. It can as well be an order which is amended or rectified order as held in the cases of Salem Co-op Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. CIT [ 1997 (2) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Henri Isidore [ 1997 (10) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] . Therefore, the reasoning of the ld.CIT(A) that impugned order before him is not an order u/s 154 of the Act and cannot be ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ld.CIT(A), calculated the tax liability treating the status of the appellant as an Association of Persons (AOP). On receipt of the said consequential order, the appellant had moved an application u/s 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the status of the appellant and the Assessing Officer had passed a rectification order u/s 154 of the Act on 30.03.2016 treating the status of the appellant as AOP and worked out the refund at ₹ 39,38,170/- inclusive of interest of ₹ 4,13,976/-. Thereafter, the appellant had filed a Grievance Petition through CPGRAM claiming that the appellant had not received the correct interest on refund issued and subsequently, it is found that the PAN of the assessee society was in the status of trust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld or valid if there is a statutory provision to which it can be validly attributed and more importantly, the word order in the expression from the date of order sought to be amended finding place in the provisions of Sec.154 is not qualified in any other manner and it does not necessarily mean the original order. It can as well be an order which is amended or rectified order as held by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the cases of Salem Co-op Spinning Mills Ltd., Vs. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 139 and Henri Isidore Vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 247. Therefore, the reasoning of the ld.CIT(A) that impugned order before him is not an order u/s 154 of the Act and cannot be accepted. As a consequence, dismissal of appeal in limine by the ld.CIT(A) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
