Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Rajiv Gupta vs The Income-Tax Officer on 20 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: [2008]297ITR1(CHD), (2007)112TTJ(CHD)575
ORDER
M.A. Bakshi, Vice President
1. We find it convenient to dispose of these two appeals of the assessee for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 by this consolidated order.
2. The common issue involved in both the appeals is as to whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rectifying his earlier order passed under Section 143(3) for withdrawing the set off of brought forward long-term capital loss. We have heard the parties and perused the record.
3. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for assessment year 1996-97 declaring an income of Rs. 1,98,630/- on 24.12.1996. Capital loss of Rs. 2,41,759/- was also disclosed in the return of income. The said long term capital loss was not permissible to be set off against profits and gains of business and, therefore, the same was disclosed for the purpose of carry forward and set off in the subsequent assessment year. The Assessing Officer made assessment for assessment year 1996-9/ determining the income at Rs. 2,29,121/-. The long term capital loss was allowed to be carried forward. For assessment year 1997-98, the assessee filed return of income of Rs. 2,53,850/- on 13.2.1998. In this return, the assessee has also disclosed long term capital gain of Rs. 24,608/-. The said long term capital gain was set off against the brought forward long term capital loss of Rs. 2,41,759/-. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) on 26.3.1999 allowed the set off of long term capital loss against the long term capital gain of Rs. 24,608/-. The balance capital loss of Rs. 2,17,151/- was allowed to be carried forward. There is no information available to us for assessment year 1998-99. However, for assessment year 1999-2000, the assessee had filed the return declaring an income for Rs. 2,88,890/- on 30.3.2000. The Assessing Officer has made a mention in the assessment order of assessee having claimed set off of long term capital loss of Rs. 2,17,151/- against the long term capital gain on sale of shares and the balance having been invested in construction of house property. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer realized that the assessee was not entitled to set off of un-absorbed long term capital loss relating to assessment year 1996-97 as the return of income for that assessment year had been filed beyond the period allowed under Section 139(1). Show cause notice was issued to the assessee and subsequently the Assessing Officer passed orders under Section 154 for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 with drawing the set off of long term capital loss wrongly allowed while passing the orders under Section 143(3) for the respective assessment years.
4. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) but without any success. Hence, these appeals before us.
5. The learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the long term capital loss is pertaining to assessment year 1996-97. The Assessing Officer in his order under Section 143(3) has specifically mentioned in the assessment order passed for assessment year 1996-97 that the long term capital loss of Rs. 2,41,759/- is allowed to be carried forward. It was further contended that till date, the said order for assessment year 1996-97 has not been rectified or modified. While passing the orders for assessment years under Section 154 for A.Y.1997-98 and 1999-2000, the Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction by disallowing the carry forward and set off of long term capital loss without modifying the order for assessment year 1996-97, it was contended. According to the learned Counsel for the assessee, it is not permissible in law. It was further contended/that the Assessing Officer had to first modify the assessment order for assessment year 1996-97 and then he could possibly modify the orders for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 if permissible in law. It is further contended that the Assessing Officer had passed assessment orders for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 after due scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That, a conscious decision had been taken by the Assessing Officer for allowing carry forward and set off of long term capital loss against long term capital gain for assessment year 1997-98 as well as for assessment year 1999-2000. It was further contended that the issue involved in these appeals is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT, CC, Chandigarh v. Asia Resorts, Parwanoo, in I.T.A. No. 488/Chandi/2002 order dated 31.7.2006. Reliance was also placed on 'SMC decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Rishwa Rani, Ludhiana v. ITO, Ward V (2), Ludhiana in I.T.A.Nos. 99, 100 & 101/Chandi/2005 for assessment year 1997-98 to 1999-2000, order dated 10.11.2005 to support the contention that no action under Section 154 was permissible without amending the order for assessment year 1996-97. It was accordingly pleaded that the appeals of the assessee may be allowed by quashing the impugned orders passed under Section 154 for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000.
6. The learned D.R., on the other hand, contended that the mistake committed by the Assessing Officer for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 was a patent mistake committed in ignorance of the provisions of the Act. It was contended that the return of income for assessment year 1996-97 was undisputedly filed after the due date for filing the return under Section 139 (1). As per provisions of Section 139(3) read with Section 80 no loss under the head "profits and gains of the business" or capital gains" was permissible to be set off in the subsequent assessment years if the loss had not been declared in the return filed within the time allowed under Section 139(1) read with Section 139(3). It was further contended that it is well-settled principle of law that the Assessing Officer has got the power to rectify the mistakes which are apparent from record. That the record for the purpose of Section 154 is not confined to the record of the previous year as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd. v. ITO 36 ITR 350 and by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Associated Soap-Stone Manufacturing Co. 178 ITR 272. It was held that the record for the purpose of Section 154 would include record of the previous years as well as the record of the subsequent assessment years. Relying upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sirsa Industries v. CIT and Anr. 147 ITR 238, it was contended that a mistake of law which was glaring and obvious could be rectified under Section 154. It was accordingly pleaded that the appeals of the assessee may be dismissed.
7. When the learned Counsel for the assessee was confronted with the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT, U.P, v. Manmohan Das (Deceased) 59 ITR 699 to the effect that the decision of the Assessing Officer in the year of loss will not bind the Assessing Officer in the year in which the loss is to be set off. , it was contended that the same is distinguishable on facts. It was further contended that the assessee had filed the return for assessment year 1996-97 disclosing the positive income and, therefore, provisions of Section 139(3) and Section 80 are not attracted in this case. It was accordingly pleaded that the appeals of the assessee may be allowed.
8. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions and material on record. In order to appreciate as to whether there was a mistake apparent from record in the assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act relating to carry forward and set off of long term capital loss.
9. Section 80 of the Income-tax Act provides that no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 139 shall be carried forward and set off under Sub-section (1) of Section 72 or Sub-section (2) of Section 73 or Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (3) of Section 74 or Sub-section (3) of Section 74A. Section 80 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is reproduced hereunder for the sake of ready reference:
80. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss, which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed [in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 139], shall be carried forward and set off under Sub-section (1) of Section 72 or Sub-section (2) of Section 73 or Sub-section (1) [or Sub-section (3)] of Section 74 [or Sub-section (3) of Section 74AJ.
10. Section 74 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for carry forward and set off of losses under the head "capital gains" Section 74 is reproduced hereunder:
74. [(1) Where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under the head "Capital gains" is a loss to the assessee, the whole loss shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, be carried forward to the following assessment year, and-
(a) in so far as such loss relates to a short-term capital asset, it shall be set off against income, if any, under the head "Capital gains" assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset;
(b) in so far as such loss relates to a long-term capital asset, it shall be set off against income, if any, under the head "Capital gains" assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being a short-term capital asset;
(c) if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and so on.] (2) No loss shall be carried forward under this section for more than eight assessment years immediately succeeding the assessment year for which the loss was first computed.
11. Conjoint reading of Sections 80 and 74 reveals that no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 139 is eligible to be carried forward and set off. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the provisions of Section 139(3). The said section reads as under:
139. (3) If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or under the head "Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under Sub-section (1) of Section 72, or Sub-section (2) of Section 73, or Sub-section (1) [or Sub-section (3)] of Section 74, [or Sub-section (3) of Section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed under Sub-section (1) , a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under Sub-section (1).
12. As is evident from Section 139(3), if any person has sustained a loss under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or under the head "Capital gains" and is desirous of carrying forward the said loss, he is required to file the return within the time allowed under Sub-section (1) of Section 139. In this case, it is not disputed that the return of income for assessment year 1996-97 i.e. the year in which the assessee had declared a long term capital loss of Rs. 2,41,759/- was not filed within the time allowed under Section 139 (1) and accordingly the return for the said assessment year was not filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(3). In our view, the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that since the assessee had declared positive income under the head "Profits and gains of business" provisions of Section 139(3) are not attracted in this case, is bereft of any substance. The language of Section 139(3) as well as Section 80 is unambiguous. The provisions do not speak of a "loss return" but a loss suffered under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or under the head "Capital gains". In this case, the assessee had declared long term capital loss in assessment year 1996-97. If the assessee was desirous of carrying forward the said loss to be set off against the long term capital gains of subsequent year(s), than the return of income for that year was required to be filed within the time allowed under Section 139(1). If the loss is declared under the head "Profits and gains of the business" or under the head "Capital gains" in a return filed after the expiry of time specified under Section 139(1), the same would not be entitled to be carried forward and set off in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is evident from the provisions of the Act that the assessee in law, was not entitled to the carry forward and set off of long term capital loss suffered in assessment year 1996-97 in so far as the return of income for that assessment year was not filed within the time allowed under Section 139(1) and consequently not in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(3). We are, therefore, of the considered view that the long term capital loss disclosed in the return of income filed for assessment year 1996-97 (which was filed after the specified period indicated in Section 139(1)) was not permissible to be carried forward and set off in accordance with the relevant provisions of Act.
13. The only question that remains for our consideration is as to whether the Asses-sing Officer had the power to deny the set off of capital loss suffered in assessment year 1996-97 in subsequent assessment years notwithstanding the fact that in the assessment order for assessment year 1996-97 the Assessing Officer had specifically mentioned that the long term capital loss of Rs. 2,41,759/- is allowed to be carried forward. It is not disputed before us that the said assessment order for assessment year 1996-97 has not been modified either by the Assessing Officer or by any appellate or superior authorities. As pointed out earlier, the learned Counsel for the assessee has relied upon two decisions of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal to support his contentions that the Assessing Officer is not entitled to modify the orders for the subsequent assessment years without modifying the order for assessment year 1996-97. One of the decisions is in the case of DCIT v. Asia Resorts, Parwanoo (supra) (copy of the order is placed on record), a perusal of which reveals that the facts in that case are distinguishable with the facts of the present case. The issue involved in that case was the determination of unabsorbed depreciation to be set off in assessment year 1996-97. The Assessing Officer in exercise of his powers under Section 154 modified the uriabsorbed depreciation and carry forward of losses pertaining to earlier years. In that case, it was held that unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed losses had been determined by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 17.4.1995 in earlier year. The said order had not been modified at any stage. The Tribunal, therefore, held that in assessment year 1996-97 the figure of loss/unabsorbed depreciation determined earlier could not be modified without modifying the earlier orders in which such loss or unabsorbed depreciation was determined by the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the determination of loss is not a matter of dispute. There is no mistake alleged in the computation of long term capital loss in assessment year 1996-97. Had there been any mistake in the computation of long term capital loss in assessment year 1996-97, the Assessing Officer undoubtedly could not modify the figure of loss in assessment year 1997-98 or in assessment year 1999-2000 either under Section 143 (3) or under Section 154. So however, the issue involved in the present appeal is some-what different. The long term capital loss has been determined in assessment year 1996-97 the quantum of which is not disturbed. We reiterate that the said loss determined in assessment year 1996-97 cannot be modified in assessment year 1997-98. So however, the assessee had sought set off of capital loss suffered in assessment year 1996-97 against the long term capital gain in assessment year 1997-98 and in assessment year 1999-2000. Originally, the Assessing Officer while framing assessment under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1997-98 as well as for assessment year 1999-2000 had allowed the set off of the said loss against long term capital gain. Subsequently, notices under Section 154 were issued to the assessee on the ground that there was a mistake in allowing the set off of long term capital loss pertaining to assessment year 1996-97 as the said loss had not been determined in pursuance of a return filed within the time allowed under Section 139(1). As indicated earlier, Section 139(3) read with Section 80 prohibits the set off of such losses in subsequent years. The action of the Assessing Officer in allowing the set off of the long term capital loss of assessment year 1996-97 not determined in pursuance to the return filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(3), was a mistake apparent from record. In this case, the mistake apparent from record was a mistake of law. It is also pertinent to mention that the Assessing Officer while deciding the cases for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 was entitled to look into the record of the assessee for assessment year 1996-97 also to consider the claim of the assessee. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd. v. ITO (supra), the record for the purpose of Section 154 would include record of the previous year as well as the record of the subsequent assessment year pertaining to the assessee. More over, in order to give effect to provisions of Section 74 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer was required to verify that the loss which was sought to be set off had been determined in pursuance to a return filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(3). For such verification, it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to look into the record of the assessee for assessment year 1996-97 in which the loss was disclosed and determined. When the Assessing Officer made assessment under Section 143(3) for assessment year 1997-98 as well as for assessment year 1999-2000 he did not consider the restriction placed under Section 74, Section 80 read with Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Subsequently when the mistake was discovered the Assessing Officer promptly effected the rectification under Section 154 for both the assessment years after giving opportunity to the assessee modified assessment orders for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 accordingly. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sirsa Industries v. CIT and Anr. (supra) have held that a mistake of law which was glaring and obvious, could be rectified under Section 154, In the present case, the Assessing Officer had committed a mistake of law which was glaring and obvious. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, in our view was justified in rectifying the assessment orders for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000 giving effect to provisions of Section 74 read with Section 80 and Section 139(3).
14. The only issue that remains to be considered is as to whether there was any bar for the Assessing Officer to look into the provisions of sections 80, 74 and 139(3) as in assessment year 1996-97, the Assessing Officer had specifically mentioned in the assessment order that long term capital loss of Rs. 2,41,759/- is allowed to be carried forward. It is undisputed fact that the said order for assessment year 1996-97 has not been modified. This proposition of law is answered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT U.P. v. Manmohan Das (Deceased) (supra). In this case, their Lordships held as under:
Whether the loss in any year may be carried forward to the following year and set off against the profits and gains of the subsequent year under Section 24(2) has to be determined by the Income-tax Officer who deals with the assessment of the subsequent year. A decision recorded by the Income-tax Officer who computes the loss in the previous year that the loss cannot be set off against the income of the subsequent year is not binding on the assessee.
15. In the above case, the Assessing Officer had recorded the decision in assessment year 1950-51 that the loss declared by the assessee under the head "business, profession or vocation" would not be set off against the income of the subsequent assessment year. In the subsequent assessment year in which the loss was claimed to be set off, the assessee contested the issue and ultimately succeeded. The Revenue had pleaded that since the earlier order of the Assessing Officer for assessment year 1950-51 had become final and, therefore, the issue could not be considered in the subsequent assessment year. The Hon'ble Supreme Court repelled the contention advanced on behalf of the Revenue by holding that the issue as to whether the loss in any year was to be carried forward to the following year and set off against the profits and gains of the subsequent year was to be determined by the Income-tax Officer who deals with the assessment of the subsequent year i.e. the year in which the loss was to be set off.
15.1 Reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Behari Lal Ram Charan Ltd. 166 ITR 157 will also be useful. In this case, the assessee had filed the return of income for assessment year 1965-66 corresponding to the previous year ending on 31.12.1964. In its return, the assessee disclosed capital gains of Rs. 3,10,200/- but claimed set off of capital loss of Rs. 3,17,500/- sustained during the assessment year 1957-58 on sale of shares to three associate concerns. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for set off on the footing that when in the assessment year 1957-58 the loss was claimed, it was excluded in the computation of income as capital loss and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner while disposing of the assessee's appeal had stated that it was a notional capital loss. As no further appeal was carried by the assessee, with the first appellate authority the matter had become final.
15.2 The assessee challenged the rejection of its claim of set off before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the latter dismissed the appeal by holding that there was no genuine loss; it was essentially notional in nature and that the claim for set off to be admissible had to be notified by the Income-tax Officer under Section 24(3) of the 1922 Act to the assessee by an order in writing. That not having been done, the claim was not admissible. Thereupon the assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the latter came to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to benefit of set off of loss provided it satisfied that its capital loss was computed under the old Act. In its view, as the assessee had filed its return showing the loss and the Income-tax Officer neither computed the loss nor passed an adverse order, the Income-tax Officer was not entitled to take advantage of his won failure and reject the assessee's claim of carry forward and set off of loss on the ground that loss had not been determined as required under Section 24(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal further found that the Income-tax Officer had clearly disallowed the assessee's claim of revenue loss by holding that it was a capital loss. It found that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had no justification to hold that the claim of loss was not genuine while disposing of the appeal for the assessment year 1957-58 and ultimately allowed the assessee's claim. At the instance of the Revenue, four questions were referred for the opinion of the High Court. The Hon'ble High Court found that both the Income-tax Officer as also the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has found that the loss was a capital loss. It was further held by the Hon'ble High Court that the assessee had fulfilled the conditions under Section 80 because the return for assessment year 1957-58 declaring a loss was filed within time, which loss had been determined by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment order. It was further pointed out by the Hon'ble High Court that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has referred to the claim of loss as notional when he really meant that it was an estimate. The Hon'ble High Court agreed with the conclusion of the Tribunal and found against the Revenue.
15.3 The Hon'ble High Court further found that the Income-tax Officer did compute the amount by specifying it in his assessment order. When the assessee had made the claim and he took note of it, his failure to comply strictly with the requirement of sub-section ¦ (3) of Section 24 should not be permitted to be taken advantage of by the Revenue, nor should it be used to the prejudice of the assessee. On Special Leave, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since set off was claimed in assessment year 1965-66, it was necessary to consider the provisions of sections 74 and 80. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on the analysis of the above provisions of the Act, held as under:
Reading the provisions of Section 74(1)(b) and Section 80 together, we agree with the submission advanced on behalf of the assessee that the benefit conferred under Section 24 of the 1922 Act continued to be given effect to under the 1961 Act and notwithstanding the wording of Section 80 of the later Act, the High Court was right in holding that the claim of set off was admissible. In our view, on a bare analysis on these provisions, and without reference to anything more, this appeal can be disposed of. We find that the High Court reached the correct conclusion and there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs.
16. In the present case, the Assessing Officer had observed in the assessment order for assessment year 1996-97 that long term capital loss of Rs. 2,41,759/- is allowed to be carried forward. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manmohan Dass (deceased) (supra) as well as in the case of Behari Lal Ram Charan Ltd. (supra) the said decision was inconsequential. In assessment year 1997-98 as well as in assessment year 1999-2000 the Assessing Officer had initially allowed the set off of the said capital loss while making assessments under Section 143(3). So however, subsequently after realizing the mistake disallowed the set off of loss in assessment year 1997-98 as well as in assessment year 1999-2000. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT U.P. v. Manmohan Das (Deceased) (supra) the decision of the Assessing Officer in assessment year 1996-97 was of no consequence. Before making the assessment for assessment year 1997-98, the Assessing Officer was required to decide as to whether the long term capital loss claimed to be set off against the long term capital gain was brought forward on the basis of the return filed in accordance with Section 139(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961. Similarly, in assessment year 1999-2000 the Assessing Officer was required to consider as to whether the long term capital loss was declared in assessment year 1996-97 in accordance with provisions of Section 139(3), The Assessing Officer had committed a glaring mistake while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) for the respective assessment years by overlooking the provisions of law. The mistake was patently against the provisions of sections 80, 74 read with Section 139(3). We are, therefore, of the considered view that the Assessing Officer was within his powers under Section 154 to rectify his order passed under Section 143(3) for assessment years 1997-98 and 1999-2000.
The decision of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT, CC, Chandigarh v. Asia Resorts, Parwanoo (supra), as pointed out earlier, is distinguishable on facts. In the case of Smt. Rishwa Rani, Ludhiana (supra), it appears that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT U.P. v. Manmohan Das (deceased) (supra) had not been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Bench. We hardly need to say that any decision which has been rendered in ignorance of the provisions of the Act or of the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has got to be treated as a decision per incurium. Moreover, the decision in the case of Smt. Rishwa Rani, Ludhiana v. ITO Ward V(2), Ludhiana (supra) is of Single Member Bench and, therefore, not binding upon the Division Bench. Considering the fact that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT U.P. v. Manmohan Das (Deceased) (supra) had not been brought to the notice of the Bench, we with respect disagree with the view expressed by the learned Single Member Bench in the case of Smt. Rishwa Rani Ludhiana (supra). The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Behari Lal Ram Charan Ltd. 166 ITR 156 though distinguishable on facts, yet the principle of law laid down therein also advances the case of the Revenue as pointed out earlier. In that case, the assessee had disclosed a capital loss of Rs. 3,17,500/- in assessment year 1957-58. For assessment year 1965-66, the assessee sought set off of the capital loss of Rs. 3,17,500 against the capital gain of Rs. 3,10,200/- earned in assessment year 1965-66. The Assessing Officer had refused to set off of the loss on the ground that the loss for assessment year 1957-58 had not been determined by the Assessing Officer. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the assessee had complied with the provisions of the Act for filing the return for assessment year 1957-58 and the failure to determine the loss was on the part of the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the assessee could not be penalized for inaction of the Assessing Officer. In the present case, the loss had been determined in respect of which there is no dispute. So however, for that year, the assessee had not filed the return of income in which the loss was disclosed in accordance with the provisions of Section 139(1). Therefore, in our view, the Assessing Officer was justified in refusing the set off of the long term capital loss suffered in assessment year 1996-97 in assessment year 1997-98 as well as in assessment year 1999-2000. In our view, there was a glaring and patent mistake committed by the Assessing Officer originally while making the assessments for the aforementioned assessment years under Section 143(3). However subsequently, the Assessing Officer has rightly modified the assessment orders by rectifying the mistake of law in accordance with the provisions of Section 154. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years. The same are accordingly dismissed.
17. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced on 20-03-07