TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;B' Bench, Chennai (the Tribunal for brevity) made in I.T.A.No.1384/ Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. The above appeal was admitted on 03.11.2015 to consider the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order passed under Section 263, which set aside the assessment order dated 26.12.2011 was barred by limitation as per Section 263(2) ? and 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by holding that the order passed under Section 263 was against the order made under Section 143(3) dated 28.12.2006 and not in respect of order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 dated 26.12.2011 ?" 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial facts fully and truly in the return of income for the purpose of assessment on the above issue. 2. Further, assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 93,04,142/- as prior period items during the current year. Since the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, the same cannot be allowed as deduction in the current year. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Cables & Engineering Works [289 ITR 167]." 6. The assessee submitted their reply dated 13.9.2006. Thereafter, the assessment was completed by order dated 30.12.2011 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer, after taking into consideration the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 28.12.2006. The re-assessment was completed by order dated 30.12.2011. If, according to the CIT, the order of re-assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, he could have exercised his powers under Section 263(1) of the Act within the period of limitation under Section 263(2) of the Act i.e before expiry of two years from the end of financial year, in which, the order sought to be revised was passed. Therefore, the period of limitation would commence from 31.3.2007 and would come to an end on 31.3.2009. 11. Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 263(1) of the Act were initiated much beyond the said date and if 31.3.2009 is the date, on which, the limitation expires, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s found to be acceptable by the Assessing Officer and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 28.12.2006. This aspect of the matter has not even been referred to by the CIT when the notice was issued under Section 263(1) of the Act. 15. The question as to whether the date, on which the order under Section 147 of the Act was passed should be reckoned as the starting point of limitation, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has been dealt with by several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the earliest of such decisions is in the case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Limited [reported in (2007) 293 ITR 1] wherein it was held that in respect of an issue, which was not subject matte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to certain specified grounds and subsequent to the passing of the order of reassessment, the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is sought to be exercised with reference to issues which do not form the subject of the reopening of the assessment or the order of reassessment, the period of limitation provided for in Sub-Section (2) of Section 263 of the Act would commence from the date of the order of assessment and not from the date on which the order reopening the reassessment has been passed. It was further held that the order of assessment cannot be regarded as being subsumed within the order of reassessment in respect of those items which do not form part of the order of reassessment. 18. As pointed out earlier, the reasons for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was held that the order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act allowed the deduction, which was claimed under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Act and that neither in the first order of re-assessment dated 22.2.2000 nor in the second order of reassessment dated 26.3.2002 were these aspects determined. In other words, it was held that on the three issues, the original order of assessment dated 10.3.1999 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act continued to hold the field and if that is the factual position, the doctrine of merger would not apply. 22. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on Explanation III to Section 147 of the Act and submitted that there is enough power vested....