9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KAPADIA B. SUDERSHAN REDDY JJ. JUDGMENT 1. Leave granted. 2. In this Civil Appeal filed by the assessee-appellant, we are required to decide the scope of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the said Act). 3. The assessee is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It carries on the business of manufacture of cotton and man made fiber yarn. 4. For the Assessment Year 1989-90, assessment under Section 143(3) was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai, wherein the said authority determined the taxable total income for 21 months ending 31 st March, 1989 at Rs.45,92,240/-. This order was passed on 27 th February, 1992. The determination of the taxable total income was ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we are not concerned with the merits, i.e., reworking of the computation by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. However, in that connection the Department contends that the judgment of this Court in Apollo Tyres [2002] 225 ITR 273) was not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case the issue involved was regarding admissibility of deduction relating to extra shift depreciation for past years which were not claimed by Apollo Tyres in the relevant years, whereas in the present case the claim of the assessee arose due to the change in the rate of depreciation brought about by Schedule XIV to the Companies Act which was inserted with effect from 2 nd April, 1987. It is urged on behalf of the Department that the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) e. At this stage, it may be noted that the miscellaneous application dated 2 nd August, 2000 was filed within four years from the date of the Tribunal's Order dated 9 th December, 1996. To complete the chronology of events, it may be stated that on 31 st January, 2003 following the judgment of this Court in Apollo Tyres Limited [2002] 225 ITR 273) the Tribunal allowed the rectification application filed by the assessee against which the Department carried the matter in appeal to the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. 7. By the impugned judgment the High Court came to the conclusion that under Section 254(2) the Tribunal could not have allowed rectification beyond four years. That, the Tribunal had no power to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion by the Tribunal whereas the second part refers to rectification and amendment on an application being made by the Assessing Officer or the assessee pointing out the mistake apparent from the record. In this case we are concerned with the second part of Section 254(2). As stated above, application for rectification was made within four years. Application was well within four years. It is the Tribunal which took its own time to dispose of the application. Therefore, in the circumstances, the High Court had erred in holding that the application could not have been entertained by the Tribunal beyond four years. 10. In this connection, our attention is also invited to the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Harshvardha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
