2014 (2) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 147 of the Act on January 16, 2006. Subsequently, another order came to be made on May 11, 2006, reducing the quantum of tax payable. Again, in the light of the order of the first appellate authority, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the tax payable was enhanced on March 10, 2008. By another notice under section 147 of the Act dated March 21, 2008, the assessment came to be reopened. The assessee-appellant filed a return of income afresh in response to the notice under section 147 of the Act declaring the income which was originally returned as Rs. 6,20,79,546. The total income assessed by the authority came to Rs. 11,40,49,670. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) partly allowed the claim of the appellant-assessee. Howe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation, it could not have been sought to be rectified and, therefore, the procedure adopted in passing the order dated April 29, 2011, is erroneous. Coming to the first point, learned senior counsel arguing for the appellant-assessee took us through a portion of paragraph 2 of the Division Bench judgment of this court which reads as under (page 586) :          ". . . the assessee is not liable to pay interest at all, even though the assessee did not contest its liability for interest from June 1, 2003, onwards levied in the regular assessment passed under section 143(3) of the Act." According to the appellant's counsel, concession was given by the assessee in the case before the Division Bench....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, the interest to be levied under section 234D has to be only with effect from June 1, 2003, even if the assessment year referred to was prior to June 1, 2003. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, so far as the case of the appellant-assessee, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the operative date as June 1, 2003. Then coming to the second question whether the procedure adopted by the Department seeking rectification of the order, it is not in dispute that the Department did not place on record the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in KCPL, though such judgment was in existence by January 15, 2010, and the matter before the Tribunal came to be disposed of in February, 2010. The apex court, while ....