2016 (6) TMI 334 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - period of limitation - assessment of income u/s 115JA - Held that - In the present case, limitation would begin to run from the date i.e 30-03- 2001 on which the original order of assessment was passed U/S 143(3) of the Act for the reason the jurisdiction under s. 154 is sought to be exercised in respect of issues which did not form the subject-matter of the rectification proceedings under s. 154 dt. 11.01.2005 and 18.02.2005 and the AO also failed to make any reference of Sec 115JA in the notice dt 23-02-2005 issued sought to rectify the order dt 28-02-2005, but, however, made computation under book profit U/S 115JA of the Act for the first time vide Sec 154 notice dt 16-02-2009. As stated above AO has passed subsequent rectification orders and he has not made any reference on the said issue but he resorted to rectify the mistake while passing the subsequent order passed u/s 143(3)/251/154/154/251/251/154 of the Act. We find that from the end of the financial year i.e. 1997-98 the AO is bound to make the rectification order within four years and in this case the AO has passed rectification order u/s 154 on 30-03-2009 is barred by limitation as it is beyond four years from the original assessment order dated 30.03.2001. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dt 30-03-2009 passed by the AO is held to be invalid by treating the same as barred by limitation - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Validity of the rectification order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to assess the book profit under Section 115JA for the first time in a rectification order.
3. Limitation period for passing a rectification order under Section 154.
4. Validity of interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act.

Detailed Analysis

1. Validity of the Rectification Order under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee contended that the rectification order passed by the AO under Section 154 was invalid as it was based on a defective and invalid notice. The AO's order dated 30.03.2009 was challenged on the grounds that the rectification proposed was confined to the "calculation of tax and interest under Section 115JA" and not for assessing income under Section 115JA. The Tribunal found that the AO's order was indeed without jurisdiction and passed against an invalid notice, making both the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders unreasonable, uncalled for, bad in law, and void ab initio.

2. Jurisdiction of the AO to Assess the Book Profit under Section 115JA for the First Time in a Rectification Order:
The Tribunal noted that the original assessment order dated 30.03.2001 and subsequent orders did not make any reference to Section 115JA. The AO attempted to compute the income under Section 115JA for the first time through a rectification order dated 30.03.2009. The Tribunal held that the AO could not invoke Section 154 for any fresh adjudication and that the AO's action of modifying the order under Section 154 without mentioning Section 115JA was invalid.

3. Limitation Period for Passing a Rectification Order under Section 154:
The Tribunal observed that the limitation period for rectification under Section 154 is four years from the end of the financial year in which the original order was passed. The original assessment order was passed on 30.03.2001, and the rectification order was passed on 30.03.2009, beyond the four-year limitation period. The Tribunal cited the judgment in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd vs. CIT, where it was held that the limitation for rectification does not extend beyond the original order. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the rectification order dated 30.03.2009 was barred by limitation and invalid.

4. Validity of Interest Charged under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act:
The assessee challenged the interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C, arguing that no such interest was payable, and the earlier rectification order charging interest was already canceled by the ITAT. The Tribunal found that the AO's action of charging interest and the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the same were unreasonable and bad in law. The Tribunal held that the interest charges were invalid as the rectification order itself was invalid.

Conclusion
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the rectification order dated 30.03.2009 was invalid due to being beyond the limitation period and lacking jurisdiction. The interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C was also deemed invalid. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were quashed. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and limitation periods in tax assessments and rectifications.