Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 271 - AT - Income TaxAdmissibility of additional ground at this belated stage - Period of limitation u/s 153 for issue assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) - Rectifiable mistake u/s 292BB - HELD THAT:- No merit in the Revenue’s instant technical objections as this tribunal’s Special Bench decision in All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 222 - ITAT MUMBAI(SB)] after considering hon’ble apex court’s landmark judgment in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] holds that we could very well entertain such a pure legal question going to root of the matter in order to determine correct tax liability of an assessee provided all the relevant facts are already on record. These Revenue’s technical objection stand declined accordingly. Validity of assessment for want of a valid reference u/s. 92CA - assessment jurisdiction - as argued ACIT, Circle-10(1) herein was not competent to make sec.92CA reference itself to the TPO - Period statutory limitation u/s. 153(4) - HELD THAT:- Once the competent authority i.e., CIT- 10, Mumbai had already passed sec.127(2) order transferring the assessee’s assessment jurisdiction from ACIT, Circle-10(1), Mumbai to DCIT, Circle-1, Pune from 22.11.2011 itself, the former authority was hardly left with any jurisdiction to proceed further i.e., on 24.11.2011 and, therefore, all subsequent proceedings in furtherance thereto, are void and not sustainable in the eyes of law. We find no merit in Revenue’s arguments. We make it clear that the question as to whether the assessment jurisdiction stood transferred from ACIT, Circle-10(1), Mumbai as on 22.11.2011 is no more res integra once detailed discussion in [2012 (11) TMI 287 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has decided the same in assessee’s favour and against the department. This is indeed coupled with the fact that assessee has further succeeded in the preceding assessment year 2008- 2009 thereby getting the corresponding assessment quashed at the CIT(A)'s level. Faced with the situation, we conclude that the Assessing Officer at Mumbai had no authority at all to make sec.92CA reference to the TPO which renders the entire subsequent proceedings as void ab initio and not sustainable in law. We further wish to make it clear that sec.292BB quoted at the Revenue’s behest nowhere deals with such an instance of apparent lack of jurisdiction in clauses (a) to (c) thereof. The impugned assessment herein dated 30.05.2013 indeed deserves to be quashed as not only based on an invalid sec.92CA reference but also framed beyond the statutory limitation u/s. 153(4) of the Act which is extendable by twelve months therefore. Decided against revenue.
|