In the light of the above companytroversy we set out hereinbelow provisions of Section 254 2 of the 1963 Act which read as follows The Appellate Tribunal, may at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub section 1 , and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its numberice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer.
That, the Tribunal had numberpower to rectify the mistake after four years which time is set out in Section 254 2 itself for passing an order of rectification either suo motu or an application filed either by the assessee or by the Assessing Officer.
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 31st March, 1989 at Rs.45,92,240/ .
In the process of reworking the companyputation under Section 115J, the Deputy Commissioner added to the profit the excess depreciation which was debited in the profit and loss account in view of the difference which arose due to the change in the method of accounting adopted by the assessee for the claim of depreciation on machinery retrospectively from the year ending 30th June, 1983.
By the impugned judgment the High Court came to the companyclusion that under Section 254 2 the Tribunal companyld number have allowed rectification beyond four years.
This order was passed on 27th February, 1992.
40/2000 praying for recall of the order dated 9th December, 1996 by mainly relying upon the judgment of this Court in Apollo Tyres case.
The determination of the taxable total income was based on Section 115J of the Act.
By the said order ITAT had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the profit and loss account of the assessee did number reflect companyrect picture for the Assessment Year 1989 90.
On 2nd August, 2000 assessee had moved Miscellaneous Application bearing No.
It carries on the business of manufacture of companyton and man made fiber yarn.
42,98,019/ and on scrutiny of the said companyputation and the balance sheet along with the return the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reworked the companyputation as indicated at page 63 of Volume II in this case.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3246 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Tribunal only on the ground of limitation.
In the said assessment order the total income of the assessee was companyputed at Rs.
The assessee is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
APPELLANT S VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RESPONDENT S ORDER Leave granted.
10576 of 2007 SREE AYYANAR SPINNING WEAVING M.LTD.
Hence, this Civil Appeal by Special Leave.
The High Court did number go into the merits of the case.
Thirty per cent thereof was reworked at Rs.45,92,239/ .
Suffice it to state that the total profit was reworked at Rs.1,53,07,444/ .
