2023 (7) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2001-02 declaring income of nil, after set off of brought forward losses and depreciation and declared a book profit of Rs. 33,13,25,132/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In the assessment order made under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer ('AO') made various additions and deletions. The assessment order dated 27/02/2004 was impugned in the appeal filed by respondent before CIT(A). By an order dated 05/10/2004, CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of respondent. This order dated 05/10/2004 was impugned by respondent in appeal filed before ITAT. Revenue also filed appeal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al by Revenue before ITAT and ITAT, by order dated 07/04/2017, which is impugned in this appeal, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The ITAT held the rectification order was passed to give effect to the retrospective amendment made by the Finance Act, 2009. The issue which was sought to be rectified was never the subject matter of the appeal either before the CIT(A) or before the ITAT. The ITAT followed its earlier order in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (now amalgamated into Godrej Consumers Products Limited) Order dated 22/08/2016 in ITA No. 118/Mum/2015  and came to the conclusion that it was not permissible for the AO to rectify the order dated 13/04/2009 on an issue which was not the subject matter of the appeal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the ITAT's order is not valid. Mr. Suresh Kumar submitted that, therefore, the AO has rectified the order dated 13/04/2009 giving effect to the order of ITAT. Mr. Suresh Kumar also submitted that the only requirement under Section 154(7) of the Act is that the amendment under Section 154 should be made within four years from the financial year in which order sought to be amended is passed and since four years has not elapsed from the date of passing the order giving effect to the ITAT's order, the notice under Section 154 of the Act is not at all barred by limitation. 8. Mr. Pardiwala submitted, relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. (1980) 124 ITR 570 that period of limitation unde....