9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive for the taxpayer submitted that the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration was completed u/s 143(3) on 12-01-2004. However, the assessing officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on 17-03-2008. Referring to Proviso to section 147 of the Act, the ld. representative submitted that once the assessment was completed u/s 143(3), it cannot be reopened after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of failure on the part of the taxpayer to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. In this case, according to the ld.representative, the taxpayer had disclosed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the ld.DR, the assessment was rightly reopened. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessment was reopened after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The question arises for consideration is whether there was negligence on the part of the taxpayer in furnishing fully and truly all the material facts necessary assessment. As rightly submitted by the ld.representative for the taxpayer, no one could anticipate an amendment which would be brought into the statute book after lapse of 5-6 yearsretrospectively. Therefore, the taxpayer cannot be blamed for not anticipating a law which came subsequently into existence by Taxati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of the lower authorities are set aside. 7. Now coming to appeal for assessment year 1998-99, the only issue arises for consideration is rectification made by the assessing officer on the basis of the Proviso to section 80HHC which was inserted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2005 with retrospective operation. 8. We heard the ld.representative for the taxpayer and the ld.DR. According to the ld.representative for the taxpayer, the issue of deduction u/s 80HHC is a debatable one. Therefore, it cannot be disallowed in proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. Furthermore, referring to the order passed by the assessing officer, while giving effect to the order of the C.I.T.(A) dated 14-09-2004, the copy of which is available at paper book, the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of retrospective amendment brought in the statute book. The ld.DR has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd vs CIT (1995) 212 ITR 639 (SC) and the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Salem Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd vs CIT (1990) 230 ITR 139 (Mad). The ld.DR has also placed her reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Waldies Ltd vs C.I.T. (1997) 223 ITR 163 (SC). 10. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. 11. The first issue arises for consideration is starting point for limitation for rectification of the assessment u/s 154 of the Act. We have carefully gone through the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to four years from the date on which the order was passed. In the case before the Apex Court, the original order was passed on 16-09- 1968. This rectified order gave relief to the taxpayer by deducting the additional amount of income-tax levied by the order passed under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. This relief had to be taken out when the order u/s 147 was set aside by the first appellate authority. Therefore, the income-tax authority was trying to nullify the order of rectification which was passed on 16-09-1968. The Apex Court further found that the Income- tax Officer by the second order of rectification was not trying to rectify the original order of assessment but seeking to rectify an error in the amended order passed on 16-09-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Madras High Court, after placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hind Wire Industries Ltd (supra) found that the order of rectification passed by the assessing officer was within the period of limitation. 14. In the case before us, it is nobody's case that there is an error in the order passed by the assessing officer on 05-12-2005. The rectification was made only for computation of correct interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. No rectification was ever made with regard to deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. The assessing officer made an attempt to rectify the original assessment order dated 05-02-2001 on the basis of the retrospective amendment brought in section 80HHC of the Act. Therefore, the judgment of the Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
