TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3461/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7671 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KUSUM INGALE
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH VYAS
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Period of limitation; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 147; 263; 154; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, V.P. AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, A.M. ITA NO. : 3461/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 M/S. TATA INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. EWART HOUSE, 22, HOMI MODY STREET, MUMBAI-400 001 PAN NO: AAACT 4120 F VS. DCIT, 2(3), ROOM NO.557, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DINESH VYAS RESPONDENT BY : MS. KUSUM INGALE DATE OF HEARING : 19 .1 2 .2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.01.2012 ORDER PER R. K. PANDA (AM) : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2010 PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT BY THE CIT, MU MBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE I.T . ACT AND ALSO REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE BOOK PROFIT FOR COMPUTATION U/S. 115JB OF THE I.T. ACT. ITA NO : 3461/MUM/2010 M/S. TAT A INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 2 2.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.10.2003. THE WORKING OF INCOME UNDER S ECTION 115JB HAS BEEN GIVEN AT PAGE NO.14 OF SCHEDULE 1 OF THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WHICH REFLECTS BOOK PROFIT OF `. 37,39,31,357/-. THE SAID AMOUNT OF BOOK PROFIT HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER RE DUCING AN AMOUNT OF `. 11,99,58,450/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF INVESTMENT, TH E PROCEEDS OF WHICH WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED AS PER SECTION 54E C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE PROCESSING U/S 143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE AO ON 18.03.2005 DETERMINING THE INCOME AT `. 9,37,01,020/- UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE AN AUDIT REPORT WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE C IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED IN FORM NO. 29B. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE CIT, THE AO DID NOT NOTICE THE ANOMALY IN COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFI T U/S.115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LAW SHOULD HA VE BEEN INCLUSIVE OF PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT. 2.2 THE CIT OBSERVED THAT THE AO SUBSEQUENTLY WENT ON TO COMPLETE THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) ON 28.3.2006 WHER EIN THE TOTAL INCOME OF `. 17,00,33,720/- WAS DETERMINED UNDER NORMAL PROVISIO NS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THE AO DID NOT CONSI DERED IT NECESSARY TO PREPARE A COMPUTATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER, RECTIFICATIONS TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R WERE CARRIED OUT U/S.154 ON 08.06.2006 AND 16.03.2007 DETERMINING TH E TOTAL INCOME OF `. 15.43 CRORES AND `. 15.56 CRORES RESPECTIVELY. SINCE IN BOTH RECTIFICAT ION ORDERS THE INCOME DETERMINED AS PER NORMAL PROVISIO NS WAS MUCH MORE, THE COMPUTATION AS PER SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO. 2.3 FINALLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESS MENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 28.3.2006 WAS RECEIVED ON 02.01.2007 A ND APPEAL EFFECT TO THIS ITA NO : 3461/MUM/2010 M/S. TAT A INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 3 ORDER WAS GIVEN VIDE ORDER DATED 24.04.2007 WHEREIN THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT `. 9,37,40,160/- AND TAX WAS CALCULATED AT `. 3,44,49,509/-. THIS IS THE LAST AND THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THE AO WHICH CONTAINS THE EFFECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND TWO RECTIFICATION ORDERS BESIDES THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE CIT CONSIDERED THIS ORDER TO BE THE FINAL ORDER IN WHICH THE COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME ACCORDING TO ALL THE EARLIER ORDERS FROM ORDER U/S. 143(1) TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 02.01.2007 ARE CONSIDERED AS MERGED WITH THIS ORDER. HE OBSERVED FROM THE RECORDS THAT WHILE PASSING THE SAID APPEAL EFFECT ORDER, THE AO FAILED TO COMPUTE THE INCOME AS PER SPECIAL PROVISI ONS U/S. 115JB OF THE I.T. ACT AND ALSO FAILED TO INCLUDE PROFIT OF `. 11,99,58,450/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF INVESTMENT IN THE BOOK PROFIT. THEREFORE, H E WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER DATED 24.4.2007 OF THE AO GIVING EFF ECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 3. THE CIT THEREAFTER ISSUED NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE NOTICE ON THE GROUND THAT T HE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION SINCE THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT IS DATED 28.03.2006 AND STATUTORY PERIOD FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S.263 EXPIRES ON 31.03.2008. THE NOTICE U/S.263 IS DATED 01.02.2010. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION. 3.1 HOWEVER, THE CIT REJECTED THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE NOTICE DATED 01.02.2010 IT H AS BEEN CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THAT THE ORDER U/S.143(3), RECTIFICATIO N ORDERS PASSED U/S.154 PASSED ON VARIOUS DATES AND ORDER DATED 24. 04.2007 PASSED BY THE AO GIVING EFFECT TO THE CIT(A)S ORDER WERE ERR ONEOUS. THEREFORE, THE INTENDED REVISION U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS AGAIN ST THE LAST AND FINAL ORDER OF THE AO DATED 24.04.2007 VIDE WHICH THE AO HAD GIVEN EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NO : 3461/MUM/2010 M/S. TAT A INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 4 3.2 THE ASSESSEE ALSO OBJECTED TO PROPOSED REVISION ON VARIOUS OTHER GROUNDS WHICH THE CIT REPRODUCED IN PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ORDER AND WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- A) THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE COMPANY WAS FILED O N 28.10.2003, WHEREIN, AS PER SCHEDULE 1 OF THE RETUR N OF INCOME BOOK PROFITS U/S 115JB, FULL DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY IT ON THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT. B) AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME, SINCE THE TAX PAYAB LE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS WAS MORE THAN THE TAX PAYABLE U/S I15JB OF THE ACT, THE COMPANY PAID TAX AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. C) ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND THE AC IT 2(3) VIDE HER ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 28.3.20 06, LEVIED TAX ON THE COMPANY AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED INCO ME. THEREFORE, THE COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFITS U/S 1 1 5JB OF THE ACT AS RETURNED BY THE COMPANY ATTAINED FINALITY WI TH THE PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S . 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.3.2006 D) FURTHER, AS PER THE ORDERS U/S. 154 OF THE ACT DATED 8.6.2006 AND 16.3.2007, THE COMPANY WAS TAXED UNDER THE NORM AL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. E) ALSO, AS PER THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO CITS OR DER DATED 24.4.2007, THE COMPANY WAS TAXED AS PER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 3.3 HOWEVER, THE CIT REJECTED THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE DISCLOSURE OF FULL FACTS DOES NOT CONFER IMMUNITY FROM REVISIONAL JURISDICTION. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE AS SESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT DOES NOT DETER THE CIT FROM ASSUMIN G JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD WORKED OUT THE TAX ITA NO : 3461/MUM/2010 M/S. TAT A INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 5 PAYABLE UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS. HOWEVER, HE HAS EX CLUDED AN AMOUNT OF `. 11,99,58,450/- WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME AS PER SP ECIAL PROVISION U/S.115JB. ACCORDING TO HIM, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE INC OME WAS ASSESSED UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB CANNOT ATTAIN FINALITY WITH THE PASSING OF ORDER U/S.143(3 ) OF THE I.T. ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE AO HAS FAILED TO COMPUTE THE BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB BY NOT INCLUDING THE PROFIT ON SALE OF IN VESTMENT. HE OBSERVED THAT IN BOTH THE RECTIFICATION ORDERS U/S.154 OF TH E I.T. ACT THE INCOME DETERMINED BY THE AO UNDER NORMAL PROVISION WAS MUC H MORE AND COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT AND INCOME AS PER 115JB OF THE I.T. ACT WAS NOT DONE AFTER INCLUDING THE PROFIT ON THE SALE OF INVESTMENT IN THESE ORDERS ALSO. SINCE, THE AO HAS NOT COMPUTED THE BOO K PROFIT AS PER 115JB BY INCLUDING THE PROFIT OF `. 11,99,58,450/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF INVESTMENT, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO I S ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE, ACC ORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DIRECTED HIM TO PASS THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND ALSO INCLUDING THE PROFIT ON SALE OF INVESTMENT. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE TWO FOLD A RGUMENTS I.E. ON TECHNICAL GROUND AS WELL AS ON MERITS TO THE PROPOS ITION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT U/S. 263 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. REFERRIN G TO THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 (A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PA GE NOS. 38 TO 47) HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PARA 11 OF THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT CAPITAL GAIN COULD NO T BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF PROFIT U/S.115JA AND ACCORDINGLY, TH E TRIBUNAL HAD ITA NO : 3461/MUM/2010 M/S. TAT A INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 6 DIRECTED THE AO TO EXCLUDE THE CAPITAL GAIN FROM TH E CALCULATION OF DEEMED PROFIT U/S.115JA. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPE AL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BECOME FINAL. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ON MERI T ALONE THE ACTION OF THE CIT INVOKING JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT SH OULD BE HELD AS VOID- AB-INITIO. 5.1 HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TAX UNDER NORMAL PROVISION BECOMES MORE DUE TO 54EC INVESTMENT. THER EFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB ARE NOT APPLICABLE. REF ERRING TO THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF RECTIFICAT ION PROCEEDINGS ON 10.04.2006 (A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 20 AND 21) HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO CLAUSE 5 OF THE SAID LETTER WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 5. INCOME UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 COMPUTATION OF THE MINIMUM ALTERNATIVE TAX (MAT) U/ S.115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAD NOT BEEN WORKED OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. VIDE SCHEDULE I (PAGE NO.14) TO T HE RETURN OF INCOME, THE COMPANY HAD WORKED OUT BOOK PROFITS OF `. 37,39,31,357/- ON WHICH TAX AND SURCHARGE THEREON @ 7.875% (7.5% + 5% SURCHARGE), I.E. `. 2,94,47,094/- WOULD BE THE TAX PAYABLE U/S.115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. WE WOULD REQUEST YOU TO WORK OUT THE INCOME/TAX THE REON U/S.115JB. 5.2 REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT REFER TO THE COMPUTATION DONE U/S.11 5JB. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HEMRAJ UDYOG REPORTED IN 259 ITR 420 HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE C IT HAS POWER TO REVISE ITA NO : 3461/MUM/2010 M/S. TAT A INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 7 THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THE ISSUES WHICH ARE NOT TAK EN IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT, BUT IF THE LIMITATION HAS EXPIRED, THE CIT CANNOT REVISE THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN THE I NSTANT CASE WAS TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO O N 28.03.2006 WHICH EXPIRES ON 31.03.2008. THEREFORE, THE 263 NOTICE IS SUED BY THE CIT BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, THE ORDER U/S.263 HAS TO BE Q UASHED. 5.3 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD. REPORTED IN 293 ITR 1, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN TERMS OF THE EXPLANATION (C) APPENDED TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 263, THE DOC TRINE OF MERGER APPLIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF SUCH ITEMS WHICH WERE THE SUBJEC T MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND NOT IN RESPECT OF THOSE WHICH WERE NOT. REFERRI NG TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK A BUILDCON LTD. REPORTED IN 325 ITR 574, HE SUBMITTED THAT MERGER O F ORIGINAL ORDER IN REASSESSMENT ORDER IS ONLY TO EXTENT OF ISSUES CONS IDERED IN ORIGINAL ORDER. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT REP ORTED IN 243 ITR 83 AND THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA L TD. REPORTED IN 295 ITR 282. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT AND THE PA PER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO D ISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE AO HAD COMPUTED THE PROFIT UNDER NORMAL PROVISI ONS OF THE ACT WHICH WAS MORE THAN THE BOOK PROFIT COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO : 3461/MUM/2010 M/S. TAT A INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 8 U/S.115JB. THE AO IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) O F THE ACT ON 28.03.2006 HAS NOT DISCUSSED ANYTHING ABOUT THE PRO VISION OF SECTION 115JB. ONLY IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.154 OF THE ACT ON 08.06.2006, THE AO HAS MERELY MENTIONED ABOUT THE MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN THE ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 24.04.2007, WE FIND NO SUCH RELIEF OR CALCULATION U /S.115JB HAS BEEN GIVEN. 7.1 IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HEMRAJ UDYOG (SUPRA) THAT THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX HAS POWER TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THE ISSU ES WHICH WERE NOT TAKEN IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT. BUT IF THE LIMITATI ON HAS EXPIRED, THE CIT CANNOT REVISE THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE AO BEYOND T HE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143 (3) IS DATED 28.03.2006, THEREFORE, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION BEI NG 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE AO EXPIRES ON 31.03.2008. SINCE THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE CIT U/S.263 ARE 17.11.2009 AND 01.02. 2010, THEREFORE, THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 263 ARE CLEARLY BEYOND THE PERI OD OF LIMITATION. THEREFORE, THE REVISION ORDER OF THE CIT IS BARED B Y LIMITATION. 7.2 THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT EXPLANATION (C) APPENDED TO SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH DE ALS WITH THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER IN REVISION, IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, AS IN TERMS THEREOF THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER APPLIES ONLY IN RESPECT OF S UCH ITEMS WHICH WERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL AND NOT IN RESPECT OF THOSE WHICH WERE NOT. 7.3 THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AS HOKA BUILDCON LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER (SHORT NOTES) :- ITA NO : 3461/MUM/2010 M/S. TAT A INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 9 WHERE AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED UNDER SECTIO N 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, IN RELATION TO A PARTI CULAR GROUND OR IN RELATION TO CERTAIN SPECIFIED GROUNDS AND, SU BSEQUENT TO THE PASSING OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, JURISDICTIO N UNDER SECTION 263 IS SOUGHT TO BE EXERCISED WITH REFERENC E TO ISSUES WHICH DID NOT FORM THE SUBJECT OF THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT OR THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PROVIDED FOR IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTI ON 263 WOULD COMMENCE FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT A ND NOT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER REOPENING THE REAS SESSMENT HAD BEEN PASSED. IN RESPECT OF ISSUES WHICH DID NOT FORM THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 LIMITATION WOULD COMME NCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IF T HE EXERCISE OF THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 IS IN RESPECT OF ISSUES WHICH FORMED THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE REASS ESSMENT, AFTER THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED, THE COMMENCEMENT OF LIMITATION WOULD BE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 7.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN THE INSTANT CASE EXPIRES ON 31.03.2008 I.E. WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 YEA RS FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3) ON 28.03.2006. THE NOTIC ES ISSUED U/S.263 BY THE CIT BEING BEYOND THE STATUTORY LIMITATION PE RIOD OF 2 YEARS, THEREFORE, THESE ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. THEREFOR E, THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 BY THE CIT BECOMES VOID-AB-INITIO. THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 06 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2012. SD/ - SD/ - ( D. MANMOHAN ) ( R.K. PANDA ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTAT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 06.01.2012 ITA NO : 3461/MUM/2010 M/S. TAT A INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. 10 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE C.I.T. 4. CIT (A) 5. THE DR, E- BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ROSHANI