TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1(4), Mumbai (JCIT) under section 154 of the Income-tax (IT Act). 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the leamed CIT(A) erred in holding that order passed by the learned JCIT is not time barred as per the provisions of section 154(7) of the IT Act. He erred in computing the limitation period from the subsequent 154 order dated 10 June 2014 not the original assessment order dated 26 March 2013. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the rectification order and holding that denial of claim under section 801A for Thermal Power Plant (TPP) was not change of opinion despite the fact that the claims were examined during assessment proceedings and the claims were denied/reduced in the assessment. 4.Without prejudice to above and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance made by the learned JCIT in order passed under section 250 r.w.s. 154 of the IT Act in respect of tax holiday claim towards captive use of TPP. He erred in concurring with the view of the learned JCIT that such deduction is not allowable in view of provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO in the regular assessment. The ld. CIT(A) decided the said appeal vide order dated 21/04/2017 granting substantial relief to the assessee company. The ld. AO thereafter, issued notice u/s.154 of the Act dated 13/02/2018 proposing to disallow an amount of Rs.46,29,61,752/- being deduction u/s.80IA of the Act in respect of thermal power plants by applying the provisions of Section 80IA (12A) of the Act. The assessee filed a detailed written submission vide letter dated 25/02/2018 contending that the proceedings initiated u/s.154 of the Act are time barred. In other words, the case of the assessee was that the original assessment was completed on 26/03/2013. Any proceedings seeking to rectify the order could be passed u/s.154 of the Act within four years from the end of the year in which scrutiny assessment was framed in terms of Section 154(7) of the Act. In the instant case since the scrutiny assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 26/03/2013, the time limit to rectify any order could be made u/s.154 of the Act only upto 31/03/2017 and not thereafter. Apart from this legal ground, the assessee also submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record necessitating re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....We find that the following issues arise for our consideration in the present appeal :- a. Whether the order dated 27/03/2018 passed by the ld. AO under section 154 of the Act is barred by limitation as it has rectified assessment order dated 26.03.2013 passed under section 143(3) of the Act as per section 154(7) of the Act, the limitation would expire on 31/03/2017 being four years from the end of the financial year in which the said assessment order was passed? b. Whether withdrawal of the deduction under section 80-IA of the Act in respect of profit and gains of the Thermal Power Plants raises a debatable issue and, hence, cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record. 4.3. We find that the issue raised in point 'a' above would be crucial as it challenges the validity of assessment framed by the ld. AO per se u/s.154 of the Act. We find that with a view to secure consistent supply of power for its cement undertakings, Grasim Industries Limited had set-up Thermal Power Plants at Shambhupura and Kharia in the state of Rajasthan, Malkhed in the state of Karnataka, Reddipallayam in the State of Tamil Nadu and at Rawan in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is an admitted po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny. 4.5. The ld. AR pointed out that this assessment framed on 27/03/2018 is barred by limitation as it is in violation of provisions of Section 154(7) of the Act. Per Contra, the ld. DR before us vehemently argued that the said order is passed well within the time as the same was passed within four years from the end of the last rectification order passed on 10/03/2014. We are unable to comprehend ourselves to accept to this proposition of the Revenue. The rectification order dated 10/03/2014, as stated supra, was only to grant further credit of TDS to the assessee and to rectify the excess interest charged u/s.234C of the Act. Once this order is passed, it only seeks to rectify the original assessment order passed on 26/03/2013. Hence, for all practical purposes, this rectification order relates back or goes back to the date of the original assessment i.e. 26/03/2013. In other words, these rectifications are to be construed as if it has been done only in the original assessment order framed on 26/03/2013. This rectification order dated 10/03/2014 does not stand on its own. Moreover, the claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act, be it on its eligibility or on its quantum, as stated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ex Court held that for the purpose of ascertaining period of limitation u/s.263(2) of the Act, the date of original assessment order would be relevant and not the re- assessment order, as if at all there was error in allowability of lease equalisation fund, the same would arise only in the original assessment order and not in the re-assessment order. Accordingly, the revision order passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax in that case was quashed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4.8. We find that the ld. DR vehemently relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hind Wires Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 212 ITR 639 (SC) in order to support the proposition that the period of limitation in the present case had to be reckoned from 10/03/2014 i.e. the date of first rectification order u/s.154 of the Act. On perusal of the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we find that the said case was concerned with a fact situation where after the passing of original assessment order, rectification order has been passed dealing with depreciation relating to extra shift allowance. In that case, the date of original assessment order was 21/09/1979 and date of first rectification orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., he did not have much to say except placed his bland reliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd v. CIT(supra) and also the stand taken by the authorities below. We are unable to see any merits in learned Departmental Representative's reliance on Hind Wire Industries (supra) either. We are of the considered view that the ratio laid down in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd v. CIT(supra) remains confined to a case where subject matter of second rectification is the same as the first rectification and it was only in such a situation that the time limit of second rectification proceedings gets extended by the fact of first rectification proceedings. In a situation in which the subject matter of second rectification proceedings is wholly unrelated to the subject matter of first rectification proceedings as is the situation in the present case, the time limit for second rectification proceedings remains unaffected by the first rectification proceedings. In view of the these discussion, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the impugned rectification order, having been passed well after th....