The Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to revise the intimation/assessment order in purported exercise of power under Sec. 154 of the Act.

Sachchidanand Jha, J.

1. These writ petitions involving common questions of law and between the same parties have been heard together.

2. The dispute arises from the rectification of the so-called apparent mistake in the order passed under Sec. 143(3) in CWJC No. 493 of 1994(R), and intimation under Sec. 143(1)(a) in CWJC No. 762 of 1992(R) and CWJC No 886 of 1992(R), made in purported exercise of power under Sec. 154 of the Act in the matter of allowance of depreciation on account of bottles and crates. The difference between CWJC Nos. 762 of 1992(R) and 886 of 1992(R) on the one hand and CWJC No. 493 of 1994(R) on the other hand lies in the fact that for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91, governed by amended Sec. 143(1)(a) there is a provision for sending "intimation" in token of acceptance of the return after making adjustments as mentioned without any summary assessment, for the assessment year 1988-89 governed by the earlier provisions, there was a provision for summary assessment under Sec. 143(1) followed by regular assessment, if any, under Sec. 143(3).

3. The facts of the case with respect to the assessment year 1988-89 as stated in the petition in CWJC No. 493 of 1994 may be set out as follows :

Petitioner No. 1, Parikh Engineering and Body Building Company Ltd., a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the company"), carries on business of body building of motor vehicles and is also a dealer of Maruti vehicles. It also carries on the business of bottling and selling/supplying of soft drinks to its customers in the course of its main business. It requires glass bottles and wooden crates for the purpose of supply and distribution of soft drinks. According to the petitioners, such glass bottles and wooden crates ordinarily last for 10-12 months whereafter they become unusable. The expenditure incurred on such bottles and wooden crates does not exceed Rs. 5,000 and, as such, the company is entitled to claim 100 per cent, depreciation on the actual cost of each glass bottle and wooden crates treating them as "plant", while computing its taxable income, in view of the proviso to Sec. 32(1)(ii) of the Act. For the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1988-89, the company prepared its profit and loss account in accordance with the provisions of Schedule VI to the Companies Act showing a profit of Rs. 1,43,283. The said amount of profit was arrived at after allowing depreciation of Rs. 40,76,554.01 on bottles and crates at 100 per cent. The return, however, showed a loss of Rs. 15,79,876 on account of unabsorbed loss of previous years. According to the petitioners, the practice of writing off depreciation on bottles and crates at 100 per cent, was coming on since the assessment year 1979-80 and was never objected to by the income-tax authorities. However, while completing the assessment for the assessment year in question (1988-89) under Sec. 143(3), the Assessing Officer allowed deduction on account of depreciation on bottles and crates to the extent of Rs. 21,03,233 as against the claim of Rs. 40,76,554.01, thus, disallowing the claim of 100 per cent, depreciation. The company preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ranchi. Although the appeal was partly allowed on October 18, 1989, the claim of 100 per cent, depreciation on bottles and crates was disallowed and the assessment made by the Assessing Officer in this regard was confirmed. The company, thereafter, preferred further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench. By order dated March 16, 1990, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the contention and allowed 100 per cent, depreciation on bottles and crates under Sec. 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed an order giving effect to the said order of the Appellate Tribunal under Sec. 251 of the Act. The company filed an application for correction of calculation mistake which was allowed on