TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Commissioner (Appeals) determining the loss of the assessee at ₹ 56,56,008. This order was rectified under Section 154 by the Joint Commissioner on 15-2-2001 computing the loss of the assessee at ₹ 45,50,008. Consequent to the revision of the assessment for assessment year 1995-96, the Joint Commissioner, vide order under Section 154 dated 20-4-2001 has recomputed the loss of the assessee at ₹ 81,87,920. There was a further revision order dated 1-7-2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, determining the loss at ₹ 45,50,368. There was another rectification order under Section 154 dated 30-1-2004 passed by the Assistant Commissioner determining the loss for assessment year 1996-97 at ₹ 29,72,165. On 10-8-2005, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order giving effect to the orders of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Tax Case Appeal Nos. 62 to 64 of 2003, 48 of 2003, 94 of 2003, 95 of 2003, 123 to 125 of 2004, 1118 of 2004, 82 of 2004 and 262 of 2004, dated 29-4-2005, thereby further revising the order under Section 154 dated 30-1-2004 for assessment year 1996-97 determining the total loss of the assessee at ₹ 6,02,73,375. On 17-3-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation was within the provisions of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. For this, the learned departmental Representative placed reliance upon the decisions in the following case law: (i) Hind Wire Industries Ltd. v. CIT MANU/SC/0224/1995MANU/SC/0224/1995; (ii) Waldies Ltd. v. CIT MANU/SC/1048/1997MANU/SC/1048/1997; (iii) Salem Co-operative Spg. Mills Ltd. v. CIT MANU/TN/0445/1997MANU/TN/0445/1997. 6. The learned Counsel of the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the rectification order was passed beyond four years period from the date of the order, the mistake in which was supposed to be rectified. The learned Counsel of the assessee strongly relied upon the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 7. We have carefully considered the submissions. Before examining the present case on the basis of facts and on the anvil of aforesaid case laws, we can gainfully reproduce Section 154 of the Income Tax Act as under: (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to in Section 116 may,? (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act; (b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the application is received by it,- (a) making the amendment; or (b) refusing to allow the claim. A reading of the aforesaid clearly indicates that as per Section 154(7), there is a limitation to rectify any mistake arising in any order four years from the end of the financial year in which the order is passed. 8. Now, we recapitulate the chronology of events in this case. The original order in this case was passed under Section 143(3) dated 30-3-1999. The next (sic?first) rectification order dated 15-2-2001 was in connection with rectification of a mistake pertaining to Section 80G deduction, which had crept in the revision order dated 24-10-2000 passed in this case to give effect to the Commissioner (Appeal)'s order. The next rectification order dated 20-4-2001 was related to allowance of depreciation of replaced machinery of assessment year 1993-94. The next revision order dated 1-7-2003 again pertained to excess depreciation allowed on replaced machinery during assessment year 1993-94. The next rectification order dated 30-1-2004 was passed for adopting the correct depreciation on the capitalised machineries for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n these facts, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 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. (pp. 642C and 647D) A reading of the above clearly indicates that rectification order which was passed subsequent to the original order dealt with the matter of depreciation and the last impugned rectification order was also dealing with the matter of depreciation. It was in these circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the order mentioned in Section 154 could be any order including the amended or rectified order. In other words, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that the final rectification order was on the same matter as dealt with by the intervening rectification order. Hence, the Apex Court opined that the final rectification order was in fact a rectification of the intervening rectification order and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive as discussed above not at all support the case of the revenue as the facts therein clearly indicate that, on matters of rectification in the impugned orders in those cases, the intervening rectification orders were on the same issue and hence the last rectification order was held to be valid with reference to the previous rectification order. Hence, the rectification order substituted the original assessment order only on matters they dealt with. Thus this order in fact supports the assessee's case. In these circumstances, the impugned rectification in this case being with reference to matters in original assessment order and not with reference to matters dealt in intervening rectification order is barred by limitation. 14. It will be worthwhile to refer to the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. MANU/SC/0707/1992MANU/SC/0707/1992 as under: It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of the Supreme Court divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete law declared by the Court. The judgment must be read as a whole and the obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
