9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) on 2-7-2002. The order of the CIT (Appeals) was dated 23-5-2002. Thereafter, the issues pointed out by the CIT were never raised in any of the proceedings. Therefore, as far as these issues are concerned, the relevant assessment order is the order passed on 29-3-2000. It is thereafter, on 24-11-2008, that the notice u/s 263 was issued and the order u/s 263 was passed on 2-3-2009. It is very clear that the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is time barred - Decided against the Revenue. - ITA No.735(Mds)/2009 - - - Dated:- 15-5-2012 - O K Narayanan, V Durga Rao, JJ. For Appellant: Shri K Ravi, Adv. For Respondent: Shri Mahendra Singh, IRS, CIT. ORDER Per: O K Narayanan: This appeal is filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Facts filed before us, as under: Your appellant company engaged in the business of manufacture cum sale of cotton yarn fabric and Polyester swing thread had filed its return of income for the assessment year 1997-98 on 28-11-1997 declaring a Nil income as per normal provision and income of Rs. 2,12,55,606 u/s 115JA of the Income Tax Act. Exemption to the extent of Rs. 3,76,92,276 was claimed u/s 10B in respect of the income from the EOU (C unit). The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 23-10-1998. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act dated 06-08-1999 was issued. The Assessing Officer has passed an order under section 143(3) dated 29-03-2000 determining the taxable income at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 02-03-2001 to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 20-10-2000, determined the total income as per the normal provision as Rs. 2,32,46,780 after allowing deduction u/s 80HH (for Synthetic division of B Unit) and 80HHC, Rs.35,00,323 and Rs. 35,57,673 respectively. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer dated 02-03-2001, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 02-04-2001 for the following issues: a. To exclude sales tax excise duty in the total turnover include lease rent and processing charges as business income for computing deduction u/s 80HHC b. To compute Deduction u/s 80HHC before set off losses. c. To allow Deduction u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as Rs. 1,27,51,765 as per the normal computation after allowing deduction u/s 80HHC amounting to Rs. 74,35,443 Rs. 46,79,745 respectively and assessed tax u/s 115JA on the income of Rs. 2,12,55,610. The assessee had filed a petition u/s 154 on 10-12-2003 to rectify the mistake in the order dated 2-7-2002 by granting depreciation in excess on replacement of plant and machinery held as capital expenditure for the A.Y. 1994-95 to 1997-98 in consequent to the revision made in the AY 1994-95. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee had filed a statement showing revised computation of total income along with the computation of claiming deduction u/s 80HH 80HHC. Subsequently the Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 154 dated 28-6-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s80HHC before setting off losses, as per law. Consequent to the order of Hon ble Madras High Court dated 29-4-2005, the effect giving order dated 10-8-2005 was passed, by allowing the claim of expenditure on replacement of machinery amounting to Rs. 9,46,59,624. Total income as per normal provision was determined as Nil after allowing the deductions of Rs. 76,28,717 u/s 80HH and Rs. 3,79,672 u/s 80HHC. The tax was assessed u/s 115JA on an income of Rs. 2,11,41,710. It is pertinent to note that the deduction u/s 80HH amounting to Rs. 76,28,717 had been allowed after reducing Rs. 84,83,461, being the expenditure on replacement of machinery pertaining to synthetic decision of B unit. The Assessing Officer again passed an order dated 4-5- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the period of limitation for the purpose of section 263 in a case where a series of orders were passed by the assessing authority in the case of that assessee. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the period of limitation commenced from the date of the original assessment order, in which the issues sought to be revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax, have been discussed. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the subsequent orders passed by the lower authorities on different dates cannot be relied on by the Commissioner of Income-tax for reckoning the period of limitation. It is, therefore, necessary to see that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the date of that order is to be considered in which the disputed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
