COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. ASIAN PEROXIDES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed Under Section 260A of the IT Act against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1300/Mad/1994, dt. 28th Feb., 2003.

(2.) THE assessment year is 1991 -92. For the abovesaid assessment year, the assessee has filed a return. While completing the assessment Under Section 143(l)(a) of the IT Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), the AO has made adjustments by adopting the written down value determined for the asst. yr. 1990 -91 and disallowed the excess depreciation claimed in a sum of Rs. 24,14,298, against which, the assessee filed a petition Under Section 154 of the Act for rectification, which has been rejected by the AO. That order is put in issue before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has also confirmed the order of the AO. Ultimately, the assessee moved the Tribunal by way of an appeal as aforesaid by contending that while making adjustment, the assessing authority has exceeded his jurisdiction as conferred on him Under Section 143(l)(a) of the Act, which submission has been accepted by the Tribunal in toto and the order of the assessing, authority as confirmed by the CIT{A) has been set aside, which order is put in issue in the above appeal.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, the rectification of arithmetical errors as contemplated Under Section 143(1) of the Act would include in it adoption of the written down value as per the previous year and the same has been done in this case. Hence, it is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the AO. According to him, the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of the AO, adopting the written down value of the earlier assessment years for the purpose of assessment in respect of the asst. yr, 1991 -92, by holding that while making a prima facie adjustment, the AO was expected to look into the return and its enclosures and if the AO needs any further particulars he ought to have issued notice Under Section 143 of the Act. Without doing so, he cannot take the written down value of the previous assessment year as incorrect. Any opinion other than the opinion as given by the AO is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel relied on two decisions to support his contention. p -76