D.C.I.T Cir - 1,kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s The India Jute & Industries Ltd, Kolkata

ITA 802/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 80223514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D LA HIRIJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: A K TIBREWAL FCA LD
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Rectification of order; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 6; 154; 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 802/KOL/2013-C-AM M/S.THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, K OLKATA BEFORE : SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 802/KOL/2013 A.Y 2007-08 D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA VS. M/S. THE IND IA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD PAN: AABCT 1896P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI D. LAHIRI,JCIT, SR.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI A.K T IBREWAL, FCA, LD.AR DATE OF HEARING: 26-11 -2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 4 -12-20 15 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), XXIV, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 1148//CIT(A)-XX IV/C-1/12-13 FOR THE ASST YEAR 2007-08 DATED 08-01-2013 AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO U/S 154/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATI ON OF RS. 2,61,32,164/- PERTAINING TO ASST YEAR 1996-97 AND EARLIER AND WHETHER SUCH A DJUSTMENT OF NON-GRANTING OF SET OFF OF SUCH LOSSES COULD BE MADE IN AN ORDER U/S 15 4 OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE IS THAT THE RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE ASST YEAR 2007- 08 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.10.2007 DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 54,20,232/- UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND CLAIMED THE SAME TO ITA NO. 802/KOL/2013-C-AM M/S.THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD 2 BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOS SES OF ASST YEAR 1999-2000. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) BY THE LEARNED AO ON 23.11.2009. THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 2,61,32,164/- BEFORE ALL OWING SET OFF OF THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR EARLIER YEARS. THE LEARNED AO ALLOWED SET OFF OF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2,61,32,164/- FO R THE ASST YEARS 1983-84 TO 1992- 93. HE ALSO PASSED AN ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT BA LANCE UNABSORBED BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION AND UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSSES AS SHOW N IN ANNEXURE 11 OF TAX AUDIT REPORT ARE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. THE ASSE SSEE ACCEPTED THE SAID ORDER AND NO APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST SUCH ADJUSTMENT OF UNABSOR BED DEPRECIATION WITH THE INCOME SO ASSESSED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEA L AGAINST DIFFERENT ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 23 .11.2009 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. LATER THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE U/S 154 OF THE ACT DATED 1.3.2011 ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT PAS SED ON 23.11.2009 FOR THE ASST YEAR 2007-08 REQUIRES TO BE AMENDED AS THERE IS A MISTAK E APPARENT FROM RECORDS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE PARTICULARS OF MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED WAS STATED TO BE MISTAKE IN SET OFF OF UNABSORBED BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER YEARS . ACCORDING TO LEARNED AO, THE BROU GHT FORWARD UNADJUSTED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE UPTO ASST YEAR 1996-97 WHICH COULD NOT BE SET OFF UPTO ASST YEAR 1996-97, SHALL BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR SET OFF AGAINST INCOME UNDER ANY HEAD FOR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 8 ASSESSMENT YEARS COMMENCING FRO M ASST YEAR 1997-98 AND THEREFORE, SUCH UNADJUSTED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE C AN ONLY BE SET OFF UPTO ASST YEAR 2004-05 AND NOT THEREAFTER. 3.1. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 9.3.2011 EXPLAINED THAT THE LEARNED AO SHOULD HAVE ADJUSTED THE BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS L OSSES FOR THE ASST YEAR 1997-98 AND ONWARDS IN PREFERENCE TO SET OFF OF THE UNABSOR BED DEPRECIATION. THE LEARNED AO HOWEVER, WHILE PASSING THE RECTIFICATION ORDER U/S 154 ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR SETTING OFF THE UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSSES FOR THE ASST YEAR 19 99-2000 AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SET OFF THE UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSSES BR OUGHT FORWARD FROM ASST YEAR 1997- ITA NO. 802/KOL/2013-C-AM M/S.THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD 3 98 AND ONWARDS. THE LEARNED AO IN THE ORDER PA SSED U/S 154 BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TIMES GUARANTY LTD IN ITA NO. 4917 & 4918 / MUM / 2008 HELD AS FOLLOWS:- - THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION UPTO ASST YEAR 1996-97 SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. - THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR T HE ASST YEARS 1997-98 TO 1999-2000 IS ALSO NOT ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD - THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FOR T HE ASST YEARS 2000-01 & 2001-02 IS ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD UPTO ASST YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY AND TO BE SET OFF ONLY AGAINST THE BUS INESS INCOME. - THE BALANCE UNABSORBED BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS L OSS OF RS. 12,21,315/- ( 2,73,53,459 -2,61,32,164) IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE CARR IED FORWARD. 4. ON FIRST APPEAL, THE LEARNED CITA ALLOWED THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTROS INDIA PVT LTD VS DCIT REPORTED IN (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 364 (GUJ). AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON TH E FOLLOWING GROUND:- THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SET-OFF O F UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.2,61,32,164/-, WHICH PERTAINS TO THE PERIOD BEYOND THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS LIMIT. 5. THE LEARNED DR ARGUED THAT SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT WAS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 1996 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1997 CURTAILING THE NUMBE R OF YEARS OF SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO 8 YEARS AND BRINGING IT AT PAR WITH SET OFF OF UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSSES. AGAIN SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT WAS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 2001 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2002 REINTRODUCING THE OLD VERSION OF SECT ION 32(2). HE ARGUED THAT THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO FINANCE ACT 2001 CLEARLY STATES THAT THE AMENDED SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND IS EF FECTIVE ONLY FROM ASST YEAR 2002-03 AND HENCE IN THIS SCENARIO, THE ASSESSEE COULD GET THE BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF BROUGHT ITA NO. 802/KOL/2013-C-AM M/S.THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD 4 FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECATION LOSSES FOR AN INFINI TE PERIOD ONLY IN RESPECT OF LOSSES ARISING FROM ASST YEAR 2002-03 ONWARDS AND NOT FOR EARLIER YEARS. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENTS OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PIO NEER ASIA PACKING P LTD REPORTED IN 310 ITR 198 (MAD) AND CIT VS S&S POWER SWITCHGEAR LTD REPORTED IN 318 ITR 187 (MAD) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. HE FURTHER ARGUE D THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E ONLY POSSIBLE ACTION THAT COULD BE TAKEN BY THE LEARNED AO IS TO TAKE RECOURSE TO SECT ION 154 OF THE ACT, MORE SO WHEN THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS ONLY ALLOWABILITY OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND BUSINESS LOSSES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.K.J.FOUN DATIONS VS ADIT (EXEMPTIONS) REPORTED IN (2015) 62 TAXMANN.COM 178 (KERALA) WITH REGARD TO THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO. 6. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LEARNED AR ARGUED THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL MOTORS INDIA P LTD VS DCIT R EPORTED IN (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 364 (GUJ) . HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN ANY CASE, THE LEARNED A O OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISTURBED THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBE D DEPRECIATION LOSSES IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO THE AMEN DMENTS IN SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT 1996 AND AGAIN BY FINANCE ACT 2001 A S THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE WHICH EVEN GAVE RISE TO A SUBSTANTIAL QUE STION OF LAW AND A SPECIAL BENCH WAS EVEN CREATED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE. HENCE GIVEN THIS FACT, THE SAME CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE COUNSELS. WE FIND THAT THE SECTION 32(2) OF T HE ACT PURSUANT TO THE AMENDMENT IN FINANCE ACT 1996 CURTAILED THE BENEFIT OF CARRY FOR WARD OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION LOSS TO A PERIOD OF 8 YEARS AND BROUGHT THE SAID PR OVISION AT PAR WITH THE UNABSORBED ITA NO. 802/KOL/2013-C-AM M/S.THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD 5 BUSINESS LOSSES. THIS PROVISION WAS IN FORCE TILL A SST YEAR 2001-02. AGAIN THE FINANCE ACT 2001 WITH EFFECT FROM ASST YEAR 2002-03 AMENDED SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT AND RESTORED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE SECTIO N AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT 1996, ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF CARRY FOR WARD OF LOSSES TO AN INFINITE PERIOD AND TREATING THE SAME DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF UNABSO RBED BUSINESS LOSSES. WE FIND FROM THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO FINANCE ACT 2001 CLEARLY SPELLS OUT THE INTENTION BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT WHICH IS AS BELOW:- WITH A VIEW TO ENABLE THE ASSESSES TO CONSERVE SUFF ICIENT FUNDS TO REPLACE CAPITAL ASSETS, SPECIALLY IN AN ERA WHERE OBSOLESCE NCE TAKES PLACE SO OFTEN, THE BILL PROPOSES TO DISPENSE WITH THE RESTRICTION OF 8 YEARS FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION. THIS CLEARLY GOES TO PROVE THE INTENTION OF THE LEG ISLATURE TO PROVIDE THE BENEFIT OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TO BE ALLOW ED TO BE ETERNALLY CARRIED FORWARD FOR AN INFINITE PERIOD IRRESPECTIVE OF THE YEARS TO WHICH IT PERTAINS. THOUGH IT IS STATED THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2002, GOING BY THE INTENTION BEHIND THE AMENDMENT TO THIS SECTION VIDE FINANCE ACT 2001 RESTORING BACK TO THE SAME OLD PROVISIONS AS IT WAS THEN EXISTING PRIOR TO 1.4.1997 , IT COULD ONLY BE LOGICAL TO CONCLUDE THAT THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WIS DOM THOUGHT IT FIT NOT TO DISTURB ANY OF THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION LOSSES TO BE MADE AVAIL ABLE FOR SET OFF FOR AN INFINITE PERIOD. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAME HAS TO BE UNDERST OOD AS THE LEGISLATURE ONLY INTENDED THAT ANY UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE TO AN AS SESSEE AS ON 1 ST APRIL 2002 WILL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 32(2) OF THE ACT AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT 2001 AND NOT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 32(2) OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD BEFORE THE SAID AMENDMENT. WE FIND THAT NO SPECIFIC PROVISION HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2001 IN SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT RESTRICTING THE ALLOWABILITY OF CARRY FORWARD OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION LOSS UPTO ASST Y EAR 1996-97 AS AVAILABLE TO BE SET OFF ONLY FOR A PERIOD OF 8 YEARS. HENCE WE HOLD THAT THE PURPOSIVE AND HARMONIOUS INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE TAKEN KEEPING IN VIEW THE INTENTION OF THE AMENDMENT OF ITA NO. 802/KOL/2013-C-AM M/S.THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD 6 SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT 2001. WE H OLD THAT WHILE CONSTRUING TAXING STATUTES, RULE OF STRICT INTERPRETATION HAS TO BE A PPLIED, GIVING FAIR AND REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION WITHOUT LEANING TO THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE. BUT IF THE LEGISLATURE FAILS TO EX PRESS CLEARLY AND THE ASSESSEE BECOMES ENTITLED FOR A BENEFIT WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE SECT ION BY THE CLEAR WORDS USED IN THE SECTION, THE BENEFIT ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE DENIED. WE ALSO GAIN SUPPORT FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THIS AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GENERAL M OTROS INDIA PVT LTD VS DCIT REPORTED IN (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 364 (GUJ) , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT :- .. .. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AN Y UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE ON 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2002 (A.Y 2002-03) WILL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001. AND ONCE THE CIRCULAR NO.14 OF 2001 CLARIFIED THAT THE RESTRICTI ON OF 8 YEARS FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATIO N HAD BEEN DISPENSED WITH, THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION FROM A. Y 1997-98 UPTO A.Y 2001-02 GOT CARRIED FORWARD TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2002-03 AND BECAME PART THEREOF, IT CAME TO BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32(2) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2001 AND W ERE AVAILABLE FOR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFITS A ND GAINS OF SUBSEQUENT YEARS, WITHOUT ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER. THIS JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WAS FU RTHER FOLLOWED IN THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE SAME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GUJARAT THEMIS BIOSYN LTD REPORTED IN (2014) 44 TAXMANN.COM 204 (GUJARAT). 7.1. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE DEC ISIONS OF TWO COURT JUDGEMENTS RENDERED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PIO NEER ASIA PACKING P LTD REPORTED IN 310 ITR 198 (MAD) AND CIT VS S&S POWER SWITCHGEAR LTD REPORTED IN 318 ITR 187 (MAD) . WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND DECISION RENDERED THEREON IS AS BELO W:- ITA NO. 802/KOL/2013-C-AM M/S.THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD 7 AS A RESULT OF THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 32(2) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITH EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 1997, THE DEEMING FICTION OF TREATING THE EARLIER YEARS UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS THE CURRENT YEARS DEPRECIATION WAS REMOVED. THE PERIOD AVAILABLE FOR ABSORBING THE UN ABSORBED DEPRECIATION AGAINST THE PROFIT OF THE SUCCEEDING YEARS WSA LIMI TED TO EIGHT YEARS. HELD ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN IT S CONCLUSION THAT THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION BROUGHT FORWARD AS ON APRIL 1, 1997, COULD BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BUSINESS PROFITS AND IN REMITTING T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AS TO HOW MUCH D EPRECIATION WAS AVAILABLE UPTO APRIL 1, 1997, THAT COULD BE INCLUDE D IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR WAS THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE MA DRAS HIGH COURT IN 318 ITR 187 (MAD). WE FIND THAT THESE JUDGEMENTS DID NOT DISCU SS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 32(2) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT 2001 EF FECTIVE FROM ASST YEAR 2002-03 AND HENCE IS SQUARELY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACT S OF THE INSTANT CASE. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT (SUPRA) HAD DISCUSSED THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IN POST AMENDMENT PERIOD AND WOULD B E APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. IN ANY EVENT, IT IS VERY WELL SETTL ED THAT WHEN THERE ARE TWO CONFLICTING DECISIONS ON AN ISSUE OF THE SAME COURT OR DIFFEREN T COURTS, THEN THE DECISION THAT IS FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE APPLIED. REL IANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE PRODUCT S REPORTED IN 88 ITR 172 (SC) . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON MERITS OF THE ISSUE. 7.2. IN ANY CASE, WE FIND THAT THIS PARTICULAR ISS UE HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF HUGE DEBATE AND DISPUTE AND ALSO GAVE RISE TO THE CREATI ON OF SPECIAL BENCH BY THE TRIBUNAL TO ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE WHICH GOES TO PROVE THAT THE ISSUE IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE AND HENCE CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION PROCE EDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, WHAT COULD BE RECTIFIED U/S 154 OF THE ACT IS A MISTAKE WHICH MUST BE OBVIOUS ITA NO. 802/KOL/2013-C-AM M/S.THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LTD 8 AND PATENT AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISH ED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T.S.BALARAM, ITO VS VOLKART BROS REPORTED IN 82 ITR 50 (SC) . IN VIEW OF THIS, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED AO CLEARL Y ERRED IN ADJUDICATING THIS HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE UNDER RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 OF THE ACT WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AND ACCORDINGLY WE QUASH THE SAID ORDER . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 -12-2015. 1. . THE APPELLANT: THE DCIT, CIR-1 AAYKAR BHAWAN P-7 C HOWRINGHEE SQ., KOL-69. 2 THE RESPONDENT-M/S. THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LT D 4A SHREE GANESH BUSINES CENTRE, KOL- 17. 3 / THE CIT, 4.THE CIT(A) 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRAR SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) SD/- (M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATE 4 /12/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:-