2015 (2) TMI 1388

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is against this order that the assessee has come up in appeal. A few facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are as follows :- Original assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1993-94 was passed on 22nd March, 1996 allowing deduction of a sum of Rs. 12,05,20,580/- under Chapter VIA without setting off unabsorbed depreciation. The original order dated 22nd March, 1996 was amended on 21st December, 1999 in order to give effect to an appellate order arising out of an appeal preferred by the assessee. The deduction allowed by the order dated 22nd March, 1996 under Chapter VIA without setting off unabsorbed depreciation was rectified under Section 154 by an order dated 9th September, 2003. Contention ra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Their Lordships held that the expression 'any' would mean even a rectified order. What had happened in that case was that the original assessment order was passed on 21st September, 1979; the assessee applied for rectification on the ground that shift allowance was not given to him; his prayer was allowed and the order dated 21st September, 1979 was rectified on 12th July, 1982. The assessee once again applied for rectification on 4th July, 1986 contending that depreciation allowance was receivable by him at the rate of 10% whereas only 5% was allowed. The Appellate Tribunal held that the application made on 4th July, 1986 was within the period of four years from the fresh order of assessment made on 12th July, 1982. The High Court in a re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whole proceedings would start afresh but the same would not mean that even when the subjectmatter of reassessment is distinct and different, the entire proceeding of assessment would be deemed to have been reopened." The aforesaid discussion in the judgment cited by the learned advocate is with regard to interpretation of explanation (c) appended to sub-section (1) of Section 263 which merely means that the power of the Commissioner to revise an order does not extend to such matters which have been considered and decided in an appeal. The reason is very simple. An original order can be subjected to a revisional proceeding or to an appellate proceeding but an appellate order cannot be subjected to a revisional proceeding. This is what has ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the section was not specifically mentioned, vide order dated 09.09.03. Against this order the assessee went in appeal and the CIT(A) vide order dated 19.02.2004 held that the order u/s. 154 dated 09.09.03 was beyond the limitation provided by Section 154(7) and was therefore, barred by limitation. The order was accordingly quashed. In doing so the CIT(A) failed to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in Hind Wire & Industries Ltd. (Supra)" He laid stress on the fact that the CIT(A) observed that the mistake continued in the order under Section 143(3)/251 dated 27th December, 1999. But, the order arising out of an appeal which necessitated the order dated 27th December, 1999, he contended, was preferred by the assessee and it is beca....