AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... selling of Indian made Foreign Liquor. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs.29,19,12,503/- on 30/09/2009. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was passed on 07/12/2011. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 154 of the Act dated 18/03/2013 to rectify the alleged mistake in assessment order on two counts: (i) Excess depreciation has been allowed to the assessee in respect of Multiple Effect Evaporator Plant(MEEP) (ii)Short deduction of TDS on payment of rent, hence, payment of rent is to be disallowed under section. 40 (a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee furnished detailed reply to the said notice on 11/07/2013. There....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Assessing Officer found that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was required to be made. During assessment proceedings the claim of TDS was inadvertently accepted, later on the Assessing Officer rectified the mistake in proceedings under section 154 of the Act. The ld.Departmental Representative submitted that rectification proceedings are continuation of the proceedings initiated vide notice dated 18/03/2013, hence, the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act is within the period of limitation as mandated under the Act. 4. Per contra, Dr. K.Shivram appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that in the first instance the issue raised by the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 17/02/2014. The Assessing Officer initiated two parallel proceedings, one u/s. 147 and another u/s. 154 of the Act. The same case cannot be a subject matter of two parallel proceedings for the same assessment year under the Act. If the Assessing Officer was of the view that during original assessment proceedings something has been left out for examination, the Assessing Officer could have examined the same in reassessment proceedings. 6. On merits of the issue, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee Submitted that the assessee had claimed higher deprecation on MEE Plant installed during the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal The MEE Plant contribute in reducing pollution, hence, the assessee was legitima....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Government. The assessee paid for D-2 Licence as reimbursement charges. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee stated that without prejudice to the first arguments the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would not get attracted as the parties to whom rent has been paid has offered the same to tax. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Lankmark Township Pvt. Ltd., 377 ITR 635 (Del). 7. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. The primary issue in appeal before us is : (i) whether the order passed under section 154 of the Act is barred by limitation; and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Thereafter, the Assessing Officer chose not to proceed under section 154 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 of the Act albeit on different grounds. Notice issued under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 17/02/2014 and the assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) was passed on 20/03/2015. Two years thereafter the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 10/03/2017 revived the proceedings under section 154 of the Act by referring to the earlier notice issued under section 154 dated 18/03/2013. The Assessing Officer after having initiated proceedings under section 154 of the Act cannot leave the proceedings in hibernation indefinitely so as to revive it after "n" years. In our considered view the notice dated....