Case: Hind Wire Industries Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax

3. Shortly stated, facts are that the appellant-assessee was assessed for Income Tax originally under the assessment order dated 21st September, 1979. The assessee filed a petition for rectification of the said order under Section 154 of the Act as it stood then on the ground that the for Income Tax Officer had not taken into consideration the shift allowance available to the assessee. Consequent upon this application, the assessment order was rectified on 12th July, 1982. Thereafter, the assessee again applied for rectification of the fresh order of 12th July, 1982, on 4th July, 1986 contending that while he was entitled to depreciation allowance on factory building at the rate of 10%, he was allowed the depreciation only at the rate of 5%. The Income Tax Officer dismissed the assessees claim on the ground that the application was beyond time. This order was confirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the appeal, the Tribunal, however, allowed the application holding that the application made on 4th July, 1986 was within 4 years of the fresh order of assessment made on 12th July, 1982 and hence within limitation. On reference, the High Court reversed the order of the Tribunal holding that the period of 4 years is to be calculated from the initial order of assessment, viz., from 21st September, 1979 and not from the fresh order of assessment passed on 12th July, 1982.

Reasoning: 12. In view of these authorities taking the view that the word any in the expression "order sought to be amended" would mean even the rectified order, we are satisfied that the High Court was wrong in setting aside the decision of the Tribunal. Shri G. Vishwanatha Iyer, learned Senior Counsel cited before us the decisions of the Calcutta, Gujarat, Madras and Orissa High Courts in Bharat Textile Works & Ors. v. Income Tax Officer, Circle-IV, 3-A, (Company) [ 1978 (114) ITR 28 ] Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Co. Ltd. v. A. S. Manohar, Income Tax Officer, Circle IV, Ward-A, (Companies), Ahmedabad [ 1976 (102) ITR 712 ], Kothari (Madras) Ltd. v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer [ 1989 (177) ITR 538] and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kalinga Tubues [ 1991 (187) ITR 595] respectively in support of his contention that the word order used in the expression "order sought to be amended" would mean the original order of the assessment. As against this, Dr. Shankar Ghose, learned Senior Counsel, referred us to the decisions of the Patna and Karnataka High Courts in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax [ 1986 ITR 162 114 at 130] and Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka-II, Bangalore v. Mysore Iron & Steel Ltd. 1986 (157) ITR(at) 531] respectively which decisions have taken the contrary view.