9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench of this court delivered on March 24, 1993, in Reference No. 51 of 1991 (See [1993] 202 ITR 274): "(i) In a case where the depreciation allowance is rectified in an order under section 154 whether there is a complete merger of the order of assessment in so far as it relates to the depreciation allowance with the order of rectification? (ii) Whether in a case where a mistake committed in calculating the depreciation allowance in the original assessment is not corrected but repeated in subsequent rectification order dealing with the depreciation allowance, the limitation for rectifying such mistake can be computed from the date of the rectification order?" Shortly stated the facts from which the reference arose are that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . . . 25-10-1984 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It may be observed that on July 12, 1982, there was a rectification for all the assessment years in respect of the extra shift depreciation allowance not touching the question of depreciation allowable in respect of factory buildings. It was on July 4, 1986, that the assessee for the first time raised the question of the rate of depreciation on factory buildings being mistakenly taken at five per cent. instead of the correct rate of ten per cent. and the assessee contended for the rectification of the mistake. The Income-tax Officer, however, rejected the application for rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be deemed to be recomputation of depreciation containing a repetition of the mistake that occurred in the original order though such mistake was not the subject-matter of that rectification. The Tribunal held that the position would have been different if the rectification orders passed on July 12, 1982, dealt with aspects other than depreciation allowance. Thus, the Tribunal held that limitation of time does not bar the assessee's claim for rectification of the mistake in respect of the depreciation allowance on factory buildings. In the reference at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the following question to this court for opinion (See [1993] 202 ITR 274, 276): "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order with the subsequent order applies only in relation to that particular point. Thus, this court held that the limitation in the case should run from the date of the original order which contained the mistake so long as that mistake in particular was not subjected to any recomputation. It is in this background that the present application has been pressed before us. We find that the issues arising from the question decided by us is free from controversy and cannot be said to present any difficulty to be resolved by the Supreme Court since the law now recognises partial merger in taxation. Sub-section (1A) of section 154 makes the matter clear. In that view, we cannot persuade ourselves to certify that a question, fit for appeal to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
