9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 2050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord perused. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee company e-filed its return of income on 26.10.2005 for A.Y. 2005-06 declaring NIL income under normal provision of IT Act, 1961. An assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 28.12.2007 after making following additions/disallowances: (i) Interest paid for delayed payment 24,08,118/- (ii) Depreciation on buildings 46,421/- (iii) Depreciation on Plant and Machinery 33,24,300/- (iv) Disallowance u/s. 14A 52,000/- (v) Disallowance of telephone deposits 91,500/- 5. The assessee had preferred a rectification application dated 24.01.2008 pointing out the errors apparent on record in the assessment order. Subsequently, an order dated 26.03.2008 was passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant u/s. 115JB of the Act. As regards the issue sought to be rectified, that is, the liability of the appellant u/s, 115JB of the Act is concerned, there is no support available in the CIT(A)'s order and therefore, the order giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order cannot provide any basis or reference for passing an order u/s. 154 of the Act and determine the liability of the appellant u/s. 115JB of the Act. It is evident from the facts of the case that any rectification order involving the issue of determination of the liability of the appellant u/s. 115JB of the Act, ought to have been passed within four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. In this case, the relevant order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for holding that the order passed u/s. 154 was time barred under the provisions of Section 154(7) of the Act. The issue under consideration is also squarely covered by the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd., 124 ITR 570 wherein it was held that rectification of mistake- period of limitation u/s. 154(7) will apply from the date of original order of the ITO and not from the date of ITO's order giving effect to the AAC's order in respect of points not the subject matter of the order u/s. 154. 10. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). The cross objection has been filed in support of CIT(A)'s order and since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
