Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 539 - KERALA HIGH COURTLimitation for passing a assessment order - Consequential order passed by the assessing authority beyond the time limit specified u/s 153 (2A) - HELD THAT:- We find that the order of the Tribunal dated 24.05.2016 specifically directed the Assessing Authority to re-adjudicate the issue with regard to the claims made by the petitioner assessee u/s 54F. In accordance with the provisions of Section 153 (2A) of the IT Act, the Assessing Authority ought to have passed the consequential order by 31.03.2018 i.e., before the expiry of one year from 31.03.2017. However, Ext. P8 consequential order of the Assessing Authority is dated 17.02.2023 and proceeds on the assumption that there was more than one issue that was remanded to him for de novo adjudication. While it is the submission of the learned Standing counsel for the Income Tax Department that only the issue under Section 54F was remanded for de novo adjudication, we do not find it to be of much relevance to the issue that we are called upon to decide, namely, whether on a limited remand for de novo adjudication of one of many issues that arise for consideration in an assessment, the consequential order passed by the Assessing Authority can be seen as one that would attract the provisions of Section 153 (2A) of the IT Act. Taking note of the Scheme of the statutory provisions as referred to above, as also the inherent object behind those provisions, which is to ensure an expeditious finality to assessments, we are of the view that the consequential orders passed by the Assessing Authority pursuant to the remand had necessarily to be passed within the time prescribed u/s 153 (2A) - As significant in this context that the definition of assessment under the IT Act includes a re-assessment and in the case of the petitioner assessee the remand by the Tribunal warranted a reassessment of the issue in relation to the deductions claimed u/s 54F of the IT Act and the substitution of the revised finding, in place of the original finding on the said issue, in the assessment order that was originally passed. See DR. R.P. PATEL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTTAYAM [2015 (3) TMI 1291 - KERALA HIGH COURT] The time limit specified in Section 153 (2A) of the IT Act is also intended to ensure that amounts due to the Government, if any, are received at the earliest point in time after the remand. If an assessee defaults in payment of the tax dues after the passing of the consequential order giving effect to the terms of the remand, he becomes liable to pay statutory interest from the date on which he ought to have paid the tax in the first instance i.e., along with his return. Thus, an Assessing Authority, who is called upon to adjudicate an issue afresh pursuant to a remand from an Appellate Authority, cannot ignore the time limit specified in the statute for passing the consequential order because any delay would operate to the prejudice of the assessee who would be called upon to pay interest for a longer time period corresponding to the delay - Decided in favour of assessee.
|