2014 (8) TMI 689

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f facts are as under: The petitioner is an assessee under the Act. For the assessment year 1996-97, it filed returns furnishing the necessary particulars of income, expenditure, deductions etc. The assessing officer, 2nd respondent herein gave an intimation dated 11.03.1997 under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act declaring the income of Rs. 3,18,81,420/-, making provisional adjustments. The petitioner realised that instead of claiming depreciation of about Rs. 10,38,90,681/-, it claimed the depreciation of only Rs. 5,83,52,311/-. Therefore, it filed an application under Section 154 of the Act, before the 2nd respondent for rectification. The application was entertained and after verification, the 2nd respondent allowed the depreciation to the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce much less conducting any enquiry. It is also pleaded that in the revision filed under Section 264 of the Act, the 1st respondent did not address procedural lapses, but has chosen to decide the matter on merits. Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, on the other hand submits that the first order of rectification in exercise of power under Section 154 of the Act was passed on 15.03.1999 at the instance of the petitioner and an error crept into it in the context of awarding interest. He submits that the component of interest is referable to the allowing of depreciation to the extent of about Rs. 4,55,00,000/- and since that claim was made for the first time on 29.04.1998, interest was payable only from t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 26.05.1999 discloses that the 2nd respondent did not put the petitioner on notice before taking such a view. Another aspect is that he rectified the order, dated 15.03.1999 in exercise of power under Section 154 of the Act. He did not make any attempt to undertake the corresponding rectification in the order of assessment, dated 15.03.1999. The 2nd respondent seems to have felt that once the order dated 15.03.1999 is rectified, the effect thereof would automatically fall upon the order of assessment. The 1st respondent dismissed the revision before him. The ultimate controversy is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be paid interest under Section 244-A of the Act vis-a-vis the amount of Rs. 4,55,38,370/- from the date on which ....