Assessing Officer can't amend appellate orders; High Court decision clarifies.

The High Court held that an Assessing Officer cannot use Section 154 to correct orders of appellate authorities like the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that only the authority passing the order can amend it, and lower authorities cannot rectify orders of higher appellate bodies. The Assessing Officer's attempt to rectify orders based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment was deemed incorrect. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the issue raised was not a substantial question of law.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether an Assessing Officer can invoke Section 154 to correct an assessment order based on his opinion that orders of appellate authorities are erroneousRs.
2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in quashing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer's rectification under section 154 in view of a subsequent judgment of the Supreme CourtRs.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case was whether an Assessing Officer is entitled to use Section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 to correct an assessment order based on his opinion that orders of appellate authorities are erroneous. The High Court answered this question in the negative. It was established that the Assessing Officer cannot invoke Section 154 to correct orders of appellate authorities, such as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The authority passing the order may amend the order, and orders passed by appellate authorities cannot be amended by lower authorities.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the correctness of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to quash the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer's rectification under section 154. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), leading to the present appeal. The Assessing Officer attempted to justify his order by citing Section 154(1)(1A) of the Act. However, the High Court clarified that Section 154 can only be invoked for rectifying mistakes in the authority's own orders, not in orders passed by appellate authorities.

In conclusion, the High Court emphasized that decisions of higher courts must be followed, and lower authorities cannot sit in judgment over them. The Assessing Officer's attempt to rectify orders based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment was deemed incorrect. The judgment of the Supreme Court in S.A.L. Narayana Row, CIT v. Model Mills Nagpur Ltd. was cited to illustrate the distinction between rectification sought before the same authority and rectification of orders passed by appellate authorities. The reliance on the judgment in Asstt. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. was deemed misplaced as it involved a different scenario. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the issue raised was not a substantial question of law.

---