9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. Rectification u/s 154 - Substantive law - Held that:- Application of a non-existent provision, which was effective from a later date, such mistake does not involve long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be two opinions. Mistake is glaring, patent and obvious and the same has to be rectified under section 154 of the Act. - Decided in favor of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... galore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sigma Aldrich Foreign Holding Co. v. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 95 in which it has been held that the provisions of section 234D are to be construed as in operation with effect from June 1, 2003, i.e., for regular assessment made on or after June 1, 2003 irrespective of the assessment year. On the basis of this, the rectification petition was rejected. Against this finding, the assessee went in appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but to no avail. Before us, similar issues for all these years have been raised. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the grounds raised in the assessment year 2000-01, which will also represent grounds in other years as well : "1. The order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Tribunal (Delhi) in the case of ITO v. Ekta Promoters P. Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR (AT) 1 (Delhi) ; 113 ITD 719. 3.3 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that even at the time of completing the original assessment under section 143(3) on December 31, 2003 a decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Sree Karpagambal Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 842 (Mad) existed for the proposition that an amendment made in the substantive law with effect from an intermediate date will apply only from the assessment year and this decision is well fortified by the decision of the apex court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO [1994] 94 STC 422 (SC) ; [1994] 119 CTR (SC) 222 (para 23) wherein it was held that any amendment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal, Delhi, Special Bench in ITO v. Ekta Promoters P. Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR (AT) 1 (Delhi); 113 ITD 719 instead of dismissing the assessee's appeal as one on a debatable issue which is beyond the scope of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. The appellant craves indulgence to attribute additional grounds at the time of hearing." 3. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the entire material available on record. The gist of arguments, as advanced by the learned authorised representative before us, is that the issue regarding charging of interest under section 234D, in all these years, cannot be said to be a debatable one because this provision came on the statute book only with effect from June 1, 2003. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. The emphatic argument of the learned Departmental representative was that the assessee has sought redressal under wrong provision of law instead it could have filed appeal against the chargeability of interest under section 234D. Hence, the assessee has missed the bus and this grievance cannot be redressed now with reference to section 154 of the Act. 4. After considering the rival submissions in the light of oral and written submissions of the parties vis-a-vis the decisions relevant for the purpose, we are definitely of the view that under section 154, a mistake apparent from record which is obvious and patent can be rectified. Any mistake which involves long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be two opinions, ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 154 is not available to the assessee. The hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sree Karpagambal Mills Ltd. (supra) has held that if any rule is made applicable from a particular date and has not been specifically made retrospective, the rule do not apply to cases pending on specific date, irrespective of the assessment year involved therein. While sitting in Chennai, we are bound to follow the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision. In view of our above discussion, we are unable to accept the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer as well as by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this regard. We are convinced with the grounds taken in all these appeals. We, therefore, set aside the orders of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
