9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1388 - HC - Income TaxRectification u/s 154 - period of limitation - whether the period of four years provided in sub-section (7) of Section 154 shall start from the date of the original order or from the date of the amended order? - Original assessment u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 1993-94 was passed on 22nd March, 1996 allowing deduction under Chapter VIA without setting off unabsorbed depreciation and deduction allowed by the order dated 22nd March, 1996 was rectified under Section 154 - HELD THAT - Once the order dated 22nd March, 1996 was amended in order to give effect to the appellate order, it is the order dated 27th December, 1999 which became the operative order. The original order dated 22 nd March, 1996 lost its existence. The law well settled is that two operative orders cannot coexist in the same field. The order of assessment passed on 22nd March, 1996 was admittedly amended on 27th December, 1999 in order to give effect to the appellate order. The order dated 22nd March, 1996 merged into the order dated 27th December, 1999. The Income Tax Act is a special legislation. Therefore, questions arising out of the aforesaid Act have to be answered taking recourse to the provisions contained therein. But in case of doubt or difficulty assistance can be taken from the general law of the land. The cause of action for rectification is evidently a mistake. It is the mistake, which is sought to be rectified. A cause of action to rectify a mistake, in the general law of the land, does not arise until the mistake has been discovered. Therefore, Section 17 of the Limitation Act provides that the period of limitation in a suit or an application governed by the Limitation Act shall commence from the date of discovery of the mistake. The revenue in this case is however armed with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hind Wire 1995 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT . For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the proceedings under Section 154 were within the prescribed time and the Tribunal took the correct view of the matter. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Issues:
1. Limitation period for rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Interpretation of the term "order sought to be amended" in relation to the limitation period. 3. Application of the doctrine of merger in the context of rectification proceedings. 4. Relevance of the judgment in CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. to the present case. 5. Consideration of the general law of the land in interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Issue 1: Limitation period for rectification proceedings under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act The judgment dealt with the issue of whether the rectification proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were within the period of limitation as per Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The contention raised by the assessee was that the rectification order dated 9th September, 2003, amending an original order passed on 22nd March, 1996, was barred by limitation. The Tribunal relied on the judgment in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd. to determine the period of limitation, which was construed to commence from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. The Court analyzed the changes in sub-section (7) of Section 154 and upheld the Tribunal's view that the rectification was within the prescribed time limit. Issue 2: Interpretation of the term "order sought to be amended" in relation to the limitation period The Court examined the term "order sought to be amended" in the context of the limitation period for rectification under Section 154. It referenced the Hind Wire Industries Ltd. case where the Supreme Court clarified that the period of limitation commences from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. The judgment emphasized that even a rectified order falls within the ambit of this provision, and in the present case, the rectification order dated 9th September, 2003, was held to be within the four-year limitation period, starting from 27th December, 1999. Issue 3: Application of the doctrine of merger in the context of rectification proceedings The Court discussed the doctrine of merger concerning rectification proceedings. It clarified that once an original order is amended to give effect to an appellate order, the amended order becomes the operative order, and the original order loses its existence. In this case, the order dated 27th December, 1999, resulting from an appeal, merged with the original order dated 22nd March, 1996. The Court rejected the argument that the subject matter of the appeal did not include the mistaken deduction under Chapter VIA, emphasizing that the period of limitation starts from the date of the amended order, as per the Hind Wire judgment. Issue 4: Relevance of the judgment in CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. to the present case The Court addressed the relevance of the judgment in CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. cited by the appellant. It explained that the interpretation of explanation (c) under Section 263, regarding the doctrine of merger, does not directly apply to the facts of the present case. The judgment highlighted that the power to revise an order does not extend to matters already considered in an appeal, emphasizing the distinction between revisional and appellate proceedings. Issue 5: Consideration of the general law of the land in interpreting the provisions of the Income Tax Act The Court discussed the application of the general law of the land in interpreting provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly regarding the cause of action for rectification based on the discovery of a mistake. It referenced Section 17 of the Limitation Act, which states that the period of limitation commences from the date of discovering the mistake. However, in this case, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act and the judgment in Hind Wire Industries Ltd. In conclusion, the High Court of Calcutta upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the rectification proceedings under Section 154 were within the prescribed time limit. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to the limitation period, interpretation of terms, application of legal doctrines, and consideration of relevant case law, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles involved in the case.
|
