9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 947 - AT - Income TaxRectification of mistake - period of limitation - application within the statutory time limit or not? - A mistake arising as a result of a subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court - nature of receipt - Interest Subsidy received under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) and Electricity duty subsidy under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme (RIPS) has been treated as revenue receipt by the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT - The Act provides for a period of 4 years from the date of order sought to be rectified and not 4 years from original order. Hence, if an order is revised, set aside, etc., then the period of 4 years will be counted from the date of such fresh order and not from the date of original order. See M/S. KASHMIR STEEL ROLLING MILLS VICE VERSA 2015 (1) TMI 1265 - ITAT AMRITSAR , M/S NITIN SPINNERS LTD. 2021 (9) TMI 430 - SC ORDER , M/S BR AGROTECH LTD. 2021 (9) TMI 233 - ITAT DELHI , NULUX ENGINEERS 2018 (10) TMI 1908 - ITAT MUMBAI In this case, the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2012 and the same has been assessed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 02.06.2014. The assessee filed letter for rectification on 23.05.2017. Thus, we find that the rectification application filed by the assessee is within the time allowed, hence the observation of the revenue authorities that the issue has been raised after a period of 5 years is wrong on facts - Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-quantification of MAT Credit. 2. Treatment of Interest Subsidy under Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme (TUFS) and Electricity Duty Subsidy under Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme (RIPS) as capital receipts. Non-quantification of MAT Credit: The assessee contended that their rectification application under section 154 of the Income Tax Act was disposed of without considering their submission. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to modify the order accordingly. Interest Subsidy - (TUFS): The AO and CIT(A) treated the interest subsidy received under TUFS and the electricity duty subsidy under RIPS as revenue receipts. The assessee argued that these subsidies should be treated as capital receipts, citing various judicial pronouncements and a CBDT Circular No. 68 dated 17.11.1971, which states that a mistake apparent from the record includes subsequent interpretations of law by the Supreme Court. Rectification under Section 154: The AO rejected the rectification application stating that the issues raised were debatable and not mistakes apparent from the record. The CIT(A) upheld this view, noting that rectification under section 154 is only for obvious mistakes, not those requiring long reasoning or where two opinions are possible. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal reviewed the statutory time limit for rectification under section 154, noting that it allows for a period of four years from the date of the order sought to be rectified. The Tribunal found that the rectification application filed by the assessee was within this time limit. The Tribunal also considered various judicial pronouncements, including decisions by the Supreme Court and High Courts, which supported the view that subsequent judicial decisions can constitute a mistake apparent from the record. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the matter was covered by the orders of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, directing the AO to treat the subsidies as capital receipts and rectify the order accordingly. Order Pronounced: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 18/01/2024.
|
