9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave felt that once the order dated 15.03.1999 is rectified, the effect would automatically fall upon the order of assessment - The figure was arrived at by calculating the interest from the relevant date in the AY which is referable to 1996 - once the revenue allowed the interest from that date, valuable rights accrued to the assessee - the exercise can be redone by the revenue after issuing notice, only on the limited aspect of the interest, payable u/s 244-A of the Act – Decided in favour of assessee. - W. P. No. 11383 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2014 - L. Narasimha Reddy And Challa Kodanda Ram,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri Y. Ratnakar For the Respondent : Sri J. V. Prasad ORDER (Per LNR,J) This writ petition is fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est under Section 244-A was wrongly allowed from 1996, though it was payable only from the date on which an application for rectification was filed under Section 154. He accordingly recomputed the refundable amount and it was shown at ₹ 1,69,99,893/-. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 264 of the Act before the 1st respondent. The revision was rejected through order, dated 21.08.2000. Sri Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent was entitled to invoke his jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act, if only there existed any error apparent on the face of the record and that it was not even alleged that such an error exists in any orders passed by him earlier ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner claimed depreciation of ₹ 5,83,52,311/-. That, as well as some other claims were allowed by the 2nd respondent through the intimation dated 11.03.1997 under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. It is thereafter, that the petitioner realised that depreciation of about ₹ 4,55,00,000/- ought to have been claimed. Stating the reasons resulted in such a lapse, it filed an application before the 2nd respondent for rectification under Section 154 of the Act. The claim was found to be acceptable and an order was passed on 15.03.1999. One of the amounts that was held to be refundable to the petitioner, is ₹ 58,90,495/-, towards interest. That figure represented the interest calculated from 1996. In the order of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew, in exercise of power under Section 154 of the Act, he ought to have issued a notice to the petitioner. Admittedly, no such notice was issued. Though this ground was not specifically pleaded, we cannot ignore such a serious lapse, which crept into the proceedings. We are of the view that the exercise can be redone by the 2nd respondent after issuing notice, only on the limited aspect of the interest, payable under Section 244-A of the Act. Hence, we allow the writ petition and set aside the order, dated 26.05.1999 passed by the 2nd respondent as affirmed by the 1st respondent in his order, dated 21.08.2000. It is left open to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh order, after issuing notice to the petitioner. The assessment proceedings for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
