1384 to 1386 of 2005.
Assessment for the year 1994 95 was companypleted on 27.02.1997 and those of the Assessment Years 1995 96 and 1996 97 were companypleted on 12.05.1997 and 30.03.1998 respectively.
263 on 29.03.2004 are clearly barred by limitation with reference to the orders passed under Sec.
In the said orders of assessment, the assessees return under the Head Lease Equalization Fund was accepted.
A.K. Thanga Pillai 252 ITR 260 .
The facts of the case clearly show the claim of lease equalisation fund, if at all accepted, is an error companymitted by the Assessing Officer in his order passed under Sec.
Year 95 96 on 12.5.97 and for the Asst.
143 3 by the Assessing Officer for the above Asst.
143 3 of the Act for the Asst.
Year on 30.3.98.
However, proceedings for reassessment were initiated by the assessing officer on 05.03.2004.
years on 27.2.97 25.12.97 and 30.3.98 respectively.
the year 97 98.
Year 94 95 on 27.2.97, for the Asst.
Therefore, these orders very much subsist despite the subsequent proceedings under sec.
Orders of reassessment were passed on 28.03.2002.
i , the expenses claimed for share issue, ii , bad and doubtful debts and iii , excess depreciation on gas cylinders and goods companytainers.
All the subsequent events are in respect of matters other than the allowance of lease equalization fund.
3301 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Civil No.
Proceedings for reassessment, however, were initiated only in respect of three items, viz.,
It filed its returns for assessment under the Act for the assessment years 1994 95, 1995 96 and 1996 97 on 23.11.1994, 27.11.1995 and 26.11.1997 respectively.
In other words, the error, if any, has been companymitted, it was done in the order of the Assessing Officer passed Asst.
148 and ultimately, the orders of reassessment were framed on 28.3.2002.
Accordingly, the orders of the CIT under Sec.
263 are vacated and the ground taken by the Assessee is allowed.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The said question arises on the following facts Respondent is a companypany incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
Revenue preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench stating Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel submits that the very same issue has been raised and decided by the Court against the Revenue in the case of CWT Vs.
The Assessee, numberdoubt, took up these assessments in appeal before the CIT Appeals and thereafter the assessment itself was subject to proceedings under Sec.
18372 of 2006 B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The learned Tribunal referred to several decisions of this Court and other High Courts for arriving inter alia at the following companyclusion In the light of the above decisions and authorities, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed under Sec.
148 of the Act.
Whether for the purpose of companyputing the period of limitation envisaged under Sub section 2 of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act , the date of order of assessment or that of the reassessment, is to be taken into companysideration is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in Income Tax Appeal No.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the Revenue is before us.
