TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee s claim of higher depreciation. The issue is highly debatable and hence, cannot be subject matter of proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. Short deduction of TDS on payment of rent - The assessee has furnished copy of letter addressed to Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, wherein it is mentioned that MEE Plant is an advanced technology plant to control pollution. The equipment which could be used for greater efficiency which also results in reduction of pollution whether such equipment can be categorized as pollution control equipment requires consideration and debate. Thus, MEE Plant whether eligible for higher rate of depreciation is a subject matter of debate which could not have been settled in rectification proceedings under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e u/s. 154 of the Act dated 18/03/2013 to rectify the alleged mistake in assessment order on two counts: (i) Excess depreciation has been allowed to the assessee in respect of Multiple Effect Evaporator Plant(MEEP) (ii)Short deduction of TDS on payment of rent, hence, payment of rent is to be disallowed under section. 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee furnished detailed reply to the said notice on 11/07/2013. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings for the impugned assessment year and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 17/02/2014. The Assessing Officer passed order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 20/03/2015. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued fresh notice u/s. 154 of the Act to revive the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ectification proceedings are continuation of the proceedings initiated vide notice dated 18/03/2013, hence, the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act is within the period of limitation as mandated under the Act. 4. Per contra, Dr. K.Shivram appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that in the first instance the issue raised by the Assessing Officer u/s.154 of the Act is debatable, therefore, it could not have been rectified u/s. 154 of the Act. In support of this contention the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) ITO vs. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50(SC) (ii) CIT vs. Reliance Industries L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been left out for examination, the Assessing Officer could have examined the same in reassessment proceedings. 6. On merits of the issue, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee Submitted that the assessee had claimed higher deprecation on MEE Plant installed during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal The MEE Plant contribute in reducing pollution, hence, the assessee was legitimately claiming depreciation at higher rate i.e. at 80%. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee referred to the letter dated 08/08/2008 from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (at page 73 of the paper book) directing the assessee to install advanced technology to meet zero discharge . The assessee in response to the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tative of the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Lankmark Township Pvt. Ltd., 377 ITR 635 (Del). 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The primary issue in appeal before us is : (i) whether the order passed under section 154 of the Act is barred by limitation; and (ii) whether the alleged rectification made by Assessing Officer in proceedings under section 154 of the Act are on debatable issue. 8. The provisions of section 154 empowers the Assessing Officer to rectify any mistake apparent from record in an order passed under the provisions of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer does not enjoy unf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 10/03/2017 revived the proceedings under section 154 of the Act by referring to the earlier notice issued under section 154 dated 18/03/2013. The Assessing Officer after having initiated proceedings under section 154 of the Act cannot leave the proceedings in hibernation indefinitely so as to revive it after n years. In our considered view the notice dated 10/03/2017 under section. 154 of the Act was a fresh notice which was clearly barred by limitation. Even if, it is presumed to be continuation of initial proceedings, the amendment to the original assessment order could not have been made after expiry of four years from the end of Financial Year in which the said order was passed. Hence, the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
