2022 (1) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the rectification order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer ("AO") u/s. 154/143(3)/250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Ace) and the disallowance made therein is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and barred by time limitation. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the rectification order passed by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act dated 16.03.2016 is barred by limitation as the assessment order cannot be rectified by a notice u/s. 154 dated 07.03.2016, which is admittedly beyond the period of four years as stipulated in section 154. Hence the order u/s. 154 is barred by limitation, and hence the same is invalid and liable to be set aside. 3. That the time limitation u/s. 154 has to be seen fro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs. 3,83,54,673/-. 8. That, without prejudice, the disallowance of carry forward of depreciation has also been wrongly worked out. 9. That the Appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any objections herein or add any further grounds as may be considered necessary either before or during the hearing." 2. Facts of the present case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring NIL income after adjusting unabsorbed depreciation to the extent of Rs. 3,83,54,673/-. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), disallowance amounting to Rs. 25,76,13,085/- was made on account of c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issue of allowability of set off of appreciation is a debatable issue, hence, is beyond the scope of provision of Section 154 of the Act. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. 8. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the order is within the time prescribed under the Act. 9. We have heard rival submission and perused the material available on record and supported the orders of the authorities below. 10. The grievance of the assessee is that impugned order passed by the A.O. is illegal and barred by time. Section 154(7) of the Act prescribes t....