Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an AOP/Trust, filed a nil return for AY 2015-16. CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) with adjustments, and an order under Section 154 was subsequently passed. The assessee's rectification application, filed on 11.09.2023, was rejected by the JAO as time-barred, a decision upheld by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the rectification application was hopelessly time-barred, having been filed beyond the statutory four-year limit from the original intimation under Section 143(1) and the initial rectification order under Section 154. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in M/S. Hind Wire Industries Ltd.
Key Issues
Whether a rectification application filed well beyond the statutory four-year limit from the date of the original intimation under Section 143(1) and a subsequent rectification order under Section 154 can be entertained.
Sections Cited
143(1), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN
Before: HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI HON’BLE MANU KUMAR GIRI
आयकर अपीलीय अ�धकरण �ायपीठ, कोचीन IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN माननीय इंटूरी रामा राव, लेखा सद� एवं माननीय �ी मनु कुमार �ग�र, �ा�यक सद� के सम� BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI HON’BLE MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ �नधा�रण वष� /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Alliance Educational Foundation, The Income Tax Officer, Malakkara, Aranmula, Vs. Exemption Ward, Edayaranmula S.O., Alapuzha. Pathanamthitta – 689 532. PAN: AAATA 3723E (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri M.S.Venkitachalam, C.A ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 04.11.2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member):
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) ADDL/JCIT (A)-5 KOLKATA [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 22.08.2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP (sub- category-Trust) and derives income from Other Sources. The appellant filed return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 09.11.2015 declaring total income of ‘Nil’. Assessing Officer (A.O.), CPC, Bangalore processed the return u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.10.2016 making certain adjustments/raising tax payable over and above the returned income / tax payable. Thereafter the AO passed order u/s 154 on 16.05.2017. The assessee filed letter dated 11.09.2023 with the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO), who by his order u/s 154 dated 29.09.2023 rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).
However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the appellant moved the rectification application before the JAO which was much beyond the expiry of 4 years from the end of the years in which intimation u/s 143(1) as well as the first rectification order u/s 154 were passed.
Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us.
4. Before us, on the time barred issue of rectification application, the Ld. AR for assessee read out grounds 6-8, which are argumentative in nature. The Ld. D.R relied upon the order of the ld.CIT(A) and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the appeal papers. We find that the CPC, Bangalore processed the return u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.10.2016.
Therafter, the AO passed also passed order u/s 154 on 16.05.2017.
Thereafter, the assessee filed letter dated 11.09.2023 with the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO). This letter is in effect is a rectification application on which jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO), has again passed order u/s 154 dated 29.09.2023 rejecting the said application on ground that the aforesaid application is filed beyond time. In this respect we may refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. Hind Wire Industries Ltd vs The Commissioner of Income Tax (1995) 212 ITR 639 = [1995] 80 Taxman 79 (SC) which held as under:
Section 154, as it stood at the relevant time, read as follows: "154. Rectification of mistake.—(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record— (a) the Income-tax Officer may amend any order of assessment or of refund or any other order passed by him; ** ** ** (1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend the order under that sub-section in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered and decided. (2) to (6) ** ** ** (7) Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section 186 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the date of the order sought to be amended." ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………….
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, the learned senior counsel, cited before us the decisions of the Calcutta, Gujarat, Madras and Orissa High Courts in Bengal Assam Steamship Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 327 ; Ahmedabad Sarangpur Mills Co. Ltd. v. A.S.Manohar, ITO [1976] 102 ITR 712 ; Kothari (Madras) Ltd. v. Agrl. ITO [1989] 177 ITR 538 and CIT v. Gangaram Chapolia & Co. [1991] 187 ITR 594 , 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, the learned senior counsel, referred us to the decisions of the Patna and Karnataka High Courts in Bihar State Road Transport Corpn. v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 114 at page 130 and CIT v. Mysore Iron & Steel Ltd. [1986] 157 ITR 531 , respectively, which decisions have taken the contrary view. However, in view of the decisions of the Court referred to above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal in the present case is the correct one. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal. The appeals are allowed, accordingly, with no order as to costs.
If we go by the section 154 and ration of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. Hind Wire Industries Ltd vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, the rectification application dated 11.09.2023 is hopelessly time barred from the original order dated 25.10.2016 and also from the order u/s 154 on 16.05.2017. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) therefore we affirm the same.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 28th day of November, 2025 at Cochin.