JUDGMENT
N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
1. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following common question of law for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1974-75 for the opinion of this Court :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, an assessment order made to give effect to an appellate order completely supersedes the original assessment order and a rectification of a mistake which appeared in both the assessment orders could be taken as a rectification of only the fresh assessment order and, therefore, made within the period of limitation ?”
2. The orders of original assessments for both the assessment years were passed on 17th December, 1974, and the original assessment orders contained certain mistakes on the question whether the deduction should be carried forward from the earlier orders. There was a subsequent order rectifying the assessment orders. The revised assessment orders were made on 14th August, 1978, and in the revised assessment orders dt. 14th August, 1978, the same mistakes, which had occurred in the original assessment order, were found and the ITO, therefore, rectified this mistake by his order dt 13th December, 1979, for both the years.
3. The contention of the assessee before the assessing authority was that the period allowed under s. 154 of the Act for making a rectification has to be computed from the date of original assessment order, i.e., 17th December, 1974, and not from the order passed on 14th August, 1978. The assessee did not dispute that there was a mistake, which could be rectified in the rectification proceedings. The only question that was raised was whether the order of the ITO rectifying the mistake was within time. The AO considered the objections of the assessee and held that the rectification was made within the period of limitation prescribed under s. 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the contention of the assessee and held that the order of rectification was barred by time.
4. The Tribunal, on appeal by the Revenue, however, did not agree with the view taken by the CIT(A) and held that as soon as the rectification order of assessment was passed on 14th August, 1978, the earlier order stood superseded and the only order which was in force was the order dt. 14th August, 1978, passed by the ITO to give effect to an order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the order of rectification passed on 13th December, 1979, was within four years from the date of the order passed on 14th August, 1978, prescribed under s. 154 of the Act. It is this order that is the subject-matter of the tax case reference before this Court.
5. At the time of hearing the tax cases, Mr. P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, learned counsel for the assessee, fairly brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd. vs. CIT , wherein the Supreme Court has held as under :
“……… since the word ‘order’ in the expression ‘from the date of the order sought to be amended’ in s. 154(7) was not qualified in any way, it did not necessarily mean the original order; it could be any order including the amended or rectified order. The view taken by the Tribunal was the correct one and the High Court was wrong in setting aside the decision of the Tribunal.
6. The order of the Tribunal holding that for the purpose of computing the limitation period under s. 154 of the Act to rectify the mistake, the order dt. 14th August, 1978, should be taken into account is in conformity with the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case cited supra. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in the view it has taken that the order of rectification under section 154 of the Act was passed within the period of limitation provided under s. 154 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.