TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-90, assessment under Section 143(3) was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, wherein the said authority determined the taxable total income for 21 months ending 31^st March, 1989 at Rs.45,92,240/-. This order was passed on 27^th February, 1992. The determination of the taxable total income was based on Section 115J of the Act. In the said assessment order the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 42,98,019/- and on scrutiny of the said computation and the balance-sheet along with the return the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reworked the computation as indicated at page 63 of Volume II in this case. Suffice it to state that the total profit was reworked at Rs.1,53,07,444/-. Thirty per cent thereof was rew....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claimed by Apollo Tyres in the relevant years, whereas in the present case the claim of the assessee arose due to the change in the rate of depreciation brought about by Schedule XIV to the Companies Act which was inserted with effect from 2^nd April, 1987. It is urged on behalf of the Department that the judgment of this Court in the case of Apollo Tyres [2002] 225 ITR 273) was not applicable as in the present case the assessee had debited excess depreciation of Rs.1,10,09,445/- to the profit and loss account for the period 1.7.1987 to 30.6.1988 which consisted of Rs.19,24,684/-. According to the Department the excess depreciation of Rs.19,24,683/- was due to the change in the method of claiming depreciation from Straight Line Method to Wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment carried the matter in appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. 7. By the impugned judgment the High Court came to the conclusion that under Section 254(2) the Tribunal could not have allowed rectification beyond four years. That, the Tribunal had no power to rectify the mistake after four years which time is set out in Section 254(2) itself for passing an order of rectification either suo motu or an application filed either by the assessee or by the Assessing Officer. The High Court did not go into the merits of the case. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal only on the ground of limitation. Hence, this Civil Appeal by Special Leave. 8. In the light of the above ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication. Therefore, in the circumstances, the High Court had erred in holding that the application could not have been entertained by the Tribunal beyond four years. 10. In this connection, our attention is also invited to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another [2002](256) ITR 767) wherein an identical controversy arose for determination and the view taken by that Court was as follows:- "Once the assessee has moved the application within four years from the date of appeal, the Tribunal cannot reject that application on the ground that four years have lapsed, which includes the period of pendency of the application before the Tribunal. If the asses....