9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 27th February, 2004 with the order dated 30th December, 2008. Therefore, any rectification of the order dated 27th February, 2004 is required to be done within 4 years from 27th February, 2004 as provided under Section 154 of the Act. It is not disputed before us that issue of the provisions made for diminution in value of assets which is sought to be rectified is an issue which was never the subject matter of consideration in the order dated 30th December, 2008 passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 254 of the Act. Therefore, in these circumstances, it could not be rectified under Section 154 of the Act. Thus, the distinction sought to be made is of no consequence. - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by which the respondent assessee was aggrieved to the Assessing Officer to readjudicate. It is relevant to note that the issue of allowing of amounts set aside as provision for diminution of the value of assets was not an issue which was restored to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. 5. Consequent to the above, the Assessing Officer passed an order dated 30th December, 2008 under Section 143(3) of the Act r/w Section 254 of the Act giving effect to the order dated 29th August, 2007 of the Tribunal. 6. The Finance (No.2) Act of 2009 amended Section 115JB of the Act with retrospective effect from 1st April, 2001. The amendment inter alia added to Explanation I to Section 115JB of the Act, clause (i) providing that for purposes of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act is in the order dated 27th February, 2004 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the additions made in view of the rectification order dated 19th August, 2008 was deleted. The Tribunal in the impugned order placed reliance upon / followed the decision of this Court on almost identical circumstances in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-II Vs. Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. 143 ITR 47 to allow the respondent assessee's appeal before it. 9. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue submits that in the present facts, the decision to rectify the order arises on account of retrospective amendment made to Section 115JB of the Act in 2009 with retrospective effect from 2001. It is on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
