TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (6) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee is a nationalised bank. The Assessing Officer found that there was a mistake in the original order of assessment and those subsequently passed in that a sum of Rs. 13,174 had been allowed, in excess, under section 80M and in calculating the interest under section 244(1A) of the Act. The objection to the reopening of the assessment was that it was barred by limitation since the rectification, order was beyond 4 years from the date of the original order. The original order was dated 7-2-1978. The Assessing Officer referred to the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Road Transport Corpn. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 114/[1987] 30 Taxman 55 according to which the limitation for fresh rectification has to be reckoned fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment year under consideration which reads as follows: "Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the date of the order Sought to be amended." It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the order which is sought to be rectified in this case is dated 7-2-1978 by an order under section 154 on 19-12-1989. This, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, cannot be done as the period of four years within which the order can be rectified is over. It is, therefore, prayed that the order under section 154 passed on 19-12-1989 has to be cancelled. 6. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 was not a rectification order under section 154 but, on the other hand, was only a consequential order. Again, the third order of 16-4-1986 was also not an order under section 154 but was an order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the period of four years is to be reckoned from the date of the original assessment dated 7-2-1978. Therefore, the decision of the Patna High Court does not help the department at all. (ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Hind Wire Industries Ltd.'s case held that an 'Order' does not mean the original order and that application within four years of order rectifying assessment order is valid. In that case, the assessee was assessed to income-tax originally under the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsequent two orders, after the assessment order, dated 18-9-1980 and 16-4-1986 were consequential orders and not rectificatory orders. Hence, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also does not help the revenue. 8. For all the above reasons, we hold that the order passed under section 154 on 19-12-1989 is barred by limitation. We, therefore, cancel the same. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. Coming to the appeal of the revenue, it is against the direction of the CIT(Appeals) to allow interest under section 244(1A) on the excess interest paid by the assessee under section 215. In the order passed under section 154, the ITO withdrew Rs. 7,28,465 being excess interest allowable under section 244(1A). On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereon. . . ." The assessee has paid interest under section 215 in excess and therefore, it is entitled to get interest under section 244(1A). Further, it is contended that the ITO has not mentioned how a mistake has occurred. Further, this is a debatable issue. It is also contended that the order dated 19-12-1989 is barred by limitation. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Suresh B. Jain v. P.K.P. Nair [1992] 194 ITR 148 wherein it is held : ". . . .The word 'refund' is a commonly understood generic term which refers to the payment by the Income-tax Department of any amount due to an assessee and it does not mean only the return of an amount paid to the Department by an assessee. The Income....