TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessment year 2000-01 was barred by limitation by taking the date of assessment order and not the date of the order of rectification under section 154 as the date with reference to which the period of limitation under section 263(2) has to be reckoned ?" 2. The facts : The assessee-company engaged in the construction of water treatment plant filed its return of income for the assessment year 2000-01 onNovember 30, 2000admitting a total income of Rs. 4,48,84,554. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) onJuly 6, 2001and the returned income was accepted. Subsequently, an order under section 143(3) was passed onMarch 31, 2003on a total income of Rs. 52,07,877. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer among o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order passed under section 143(3) is rectified under section 154, as per the theory of merger, the order passed under section 143(3) got automatically merged with the order passed under section 154. So the period of limitation has to be reckoned from the date of passing of the order under section 154 of the Act. For which he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd. v. CIT reported in [1995] 212 ITR 639 (SC). 4. We have heard the argument of the learned counsel and we are not able to subscribe our view with the argument of the learned counsel for sustaining the case. 5. There is no dispute about the facts and dates as stated above. Section 263 reads as follows : "263. Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s stated that for the assessment year 2000-01, it was seen that the assessee have filed return of income on November 30, 2000 admitting nil income, that the assessment was subsequently completed under section 143(3) of the Act assessing the income for the year at Rs. 1,21,82,188, that while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer had among other things disallowed deduction under section 80-IA relating to water treatment projects, that a sum of Rs.3,14,46,497 being the profit on water supply project had been allowed as deduction under section 80-IA, that was subsequently modified vide order under section 154 dated June 19, 2003 and the deduction under section 80-IA had been restricted to Rs. 2,89,93,730. It was further stated that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct of three other items but not the item relating to `Lease Equalisation Fund' and reassessments were made. Thereafter, the Commissioner, by an order datedMarch 29, 2004, initiated revision proceedings only in relation to the item `lease Equalisation Fund'. The Appellate Tribunal held that the revision proceedings were barred by limitation as they were initiated more than four years after the original assessments; and the High Court dismissed the appeal therefrom. The Department appealed to the Supreme Court" 9. The Supreme Court further held as follows (headnote) : "affirming the decision of the High Court, that the Commissioner had sought to revise only that part of the order of assessment which related to lease equalisati....