2016 (8) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ceeding further with the impugned Notice dated 26th September, 2001. 3. The brief relevant facts are as under : (a) On 30th December, 1992, the petitioner filed its Return of Income for the A.Y. 1992-93. In its return, the petitioner inter alia claimed deduction of Rs. 1.46 crores under Section 80HHC of the Act. On 31st March, 1995, the assessment for A.Y. 1992-93 was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act inter alia restricting the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act to Rs. 1.19 crores. (b) Being aggrieved at the partial denial of the benefit of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [(CIT(A)]. By an order dated 5th October, 1995, CIT(A) allowed the petitioner's appeal by directing the Assessing Officer to increase the petitioner's entitlement for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Consequent to the above order dated 5th October, 1995 by the CIT(A), effect was given to it by the Assessing Officer on 5th January, 1996 passing an order resulting inter alia in enhancement of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act to Rs. 1.46 crores as c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... On an amount of Rs. 14,72,940/for the period from 22.11.1995 to 09.10.1996 14,72,940 x 11M 1% : 1,62,019 4,89,829 Total income remains unchanged at Rs. 2,16,62,966/given credit for prepaid taxes and tax paid / adjusted after regular assessment. Allow Interest u/s 244A(1)(b) of Rs. 4,89,829/as discussed above and issue refund order accordingly. Sd/ (Avinash Mishra) Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 13, Bombay" (e) On 2nd July, 2001, this Court disposed of the petitioner's appeal being Income Tax Appeal No. 131 of 2001 from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for A.Y. 1996-97. In its above order dated 2nd July, 2001, it held that the petitioner was not entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act for A.Y. 1996-97. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2nd July, 2001 of this Court, the petitioner carried the issue in appeal to the Supreme Court, being SLP (C) No. 16293 of 2000. The Supreme Court after hearing the petitioner directed its Registry to issue notice to the respondent Revenue on the petitioner's above petition. (f) It is consequent to the order of this Court dated 2nd July, 2001 in relation to A.Y. 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. (b) The issue of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act was a subject of consideration in the order of Assessment dated 31st March,1995. This order dated 31st March, 1995 was appealed to CIT(A) on the issue of the benefit of Section 80HHC of the Act. The appeal was allowed by order dated 5th October, 1995 by the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction being hit by subSection 1(A) of Section 154 of the Act; and (c) The issue sought to be rectified by the impugned notice viz. availability of the benefit of Section 80HHC of the Act is a debatable issue. This is evident from the fact that the very basis of the application viz. the order of this Court dated 2nd July, 2001 in Income Tax Appeal No.131 of 2001 for A.Y. 1996-97 when appealed to the Apex Court was not dismissed but an issue of notice to the Revenue was directed before admission. 5. As against the above, Mr. Kontangle, learned Counsel for the Revenue supports the impugned notice and submits as under : (a) Issue of Section 80HHC of the Act has been decided against the petitioner by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 131 of 2001 for A.Y. 1996-97. Thus, the entire exercise in issuing the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e submissions (b) and (c) above made by the petitioner i.e. issue sought to be rectified has merged into the order of the Appellate Authority and also that the issue is debatable. Therefore, before addressing the first issue of limitation, we shall consider the other two issues raised by the petitioner. 9. In the present facts, we find that the issue of Section 80HHC of the Act was a subject matter for consideration by the Assessing Officer while passing an order dated 31st March, 1995 relating to A.Y. 1992-93. Thereafter, in an appeal filed by the petitioner, the CIT(A) in its order dated 5th October, 1995 also dealt with the issue of Section 80HHC of the Act while allowing the appeal for A.Y. 1992-93 of the petitioner. The order of the CIT(A) has been accepted by the Revenue in respect of the A.Y. 1992-93, as no further appeal from the order of CIT(A) was filed. Thus, the issue of grant of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act stands settled by the Appellate Authority into which the order of the assessment dated 31st March, 1995 has merged. Therefore, even if we assume that impugned notice is not barred by limitation, yet such a notice would be barred by virtue of Section 1....