TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that after the order u/s 251 /143(3)/l54 dated 02.08.2010 was passed, the original assessment merged with the order dated 02.08.2010 and therefore, the date of limitation u/s.154(7) would be reckoned from 31.03.2011. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that since the book profit of the assessee was sought to be amended by the AO u/s 154. the last order in which the book profit was computed, i.e. order dated 02.08.2010, would qualify to be the ''Order Sought to be amended" u/s.154(7) and therefore, can be amended up to 31.03.2015." 2. The facts in brief qua the issue of limitation is that, the return of income for Assessment Year 2003-04 was filed by the assessee on 27.11.2003, declaring total income at Rs. Nil and income in the form of book profit u/s.115JB was offered at Rs. 35,95,27,137/-. The said return was subject to scrutiny and accordingly, order u/s.143(3) was passed on 31.03.2006 on Nil income and book profit u/s.115JB was computed at Rs. 37,55,50,511/-. Thereafter, order u/s.154/143(3) was passed by the AO on 17.03.2008, but again the book profit u/s.115JB was accepted at Rs. 37,55,50,511/-. Subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that such a rectification u/s.154 is barred by limitation, because what is sought to be rectified is the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 31.03.2006, which is beyond 4 years as per limitation provided in section 154(7). However, the Assessing Officer has rejected the said contention on the reasoning that the limitation of four years would apply from the order of 02.08.2010 and not original assessment order; and in support he also referred and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, (1995) 212 ITR 639. 4. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the entire facts and considering catena of decisions held that, limitation in the present case has to be taken into account from the date of original assessment order which was passed on 31.03.2006. and not order dated 2.08.2010. His observations and findings are as under: - "I have carefully considered the issue, perused the submissions and heard the AR at length. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed on 27.11.2003 and the assessment was completed on 31.03.2006 as book profit Rs. 37,55,50,511/- u/s 115JB. Income under normal provision was assessed at Nil af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. (supra) has been held that order in Section 154(7) has not been qualified in any way and it does not necessarily mean the original order. The expression 'order sought to be amended' would mean even the rectified order. Thus, he strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) and also explained the entire fact and background of the case and pointed out that the issue of rectification which has been raked up in the impugned order was not the subject matter of dispute either before the ld. CIT(A) or in the order passed u/s.251/154/143(3), because the book profit remained the same. He also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shree Naw Durga Bansal Cold Storage & Ice Factory v. CIT, reported in (2017) 397 ITR 626 (Alld.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has discussed, analyzed and explained the said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd. (supra). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant material placed on record. Here, in this case, the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der giving effect to such an appellate order dated 02.08.2010. Here, in this case, Assessing Officer has raked up completely new issue which ostensibly not falling from order dated 02.08.2010. If at all there was any kind of mistake then it could have been in the original assessment order dated 31.10.2003 for which limitation to pass an order has expired on 31.03.2010. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.10.2010 is clearly barred by limitation and the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not only correct on facts but also in law. 8. In so far as the reliance placed by the Assessing Officer and learned Department Representative on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wire Industries Ltd. (supra), we are of the opinion that same will not alter our aforesaid decision, because the Hon'ble Supreme Court have clarified that the word 'any' in the expression 'order sought to be amended' would be even the rectifying order. The said proposition will apply if the Assessing Officer seeks to rectify any earlier rectification order if there is any mistake crept in the said order. Here, in the present case, we have held above that there could not have been any mistake in the ord....