Itta/433/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax -Ii, Hyderabad v. M/S. India Poultry Pvt. Ltd

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMAND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAOI.T.T.A.No.433 of 2012 JUDGMENT(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) : Heard Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel for theRevenue, the appellant herein. The appeal is directed against the order dated 30-04-2008of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “B” Bench,Hyderabad. The Tribunal by the order impugned dismissed theappeal of the Revenue and confirmed the order of the CIT(Appeals), Hyderabad, dated 29-11-2007. The assessee had filed its return of income for assessmentyear 2001-02 declaring a total income of Rs.47,91,038/-. Thereturn was assessed u/S.143(1) and on 16-01-2003 placed ademand of Rs.9,32,484/- which was later modified u/S.154 on25.07.2003. The assessing officer however noticed that there wasa mistake in the order passed u/S.154, viz., the mistake in theallowance of quantum of MAT credit, since it was allowed on parwith advance tax. On a view by the AO that the interestchargeable u/S.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was not chargedcorrectly, another notice u/S.154 was issued to the assessee on28-02-2006. After considering the contentions of the assesseeand after due process the assessing officer passed an order dated30-03-2007 modifying the earlier order u/S.154, dated 25-07-2003,and determined the balance tax payable of Rs.20,04,836/- Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also by the CIT(A) by the order dated 29-11-2007 on theground that since the issue whether MAT credit must be treated onpar with advance tax for the purpose of calculating interest is adebatable issue on which two views are possible and debatableissues cannot be subject mater of rectification u/S.154, thesubsequent rectification order by the assessing officer wasimpermissible. The Revenue carried the matter unsuccessfully inappeal before the Tribunal. In the above chronology of events and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Volkart Brothers[[1]], the order ofthe Tribunal is seen to suffer from no error of law warrantinginterference u/S.260(A) of the Act. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ______________________________ JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO Date : 29-11-2012Kvr/ndr. [1]82 ITR 5082 ITR 50