9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 1549 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the impugned assessments on the issue of limitation prescribed u/s 153 (3) - HELD THAT - We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute between the parties that such a consequential assessment ought to be framed with the period of 9 months from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 254 is passed which in the facts of the present case expired on 31st December 2019. The impugned assessments in all these cases have admittedly been framed on 23rd April 2021. It is further clear that the tribunal s remand directions stood duly dispatched not only to office of the learned departmental representative but also to the authorities concerned as the case may be. We are of the considered view that once their lordships have made it clear that time clock in section 260A starts ticking from the copy of the tribunal s order received by the CIT (Judicial) etc. than the officers concerned as the case may be the legislature has used identical legislative expressions in section 153 (3) of the Act as well i.e. received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or . We thus invoke the very analogy herein as well to conclude that once the tribunal had pronounced first round remand order of 28.02.2019 followed by the compliance to the necessary procedural aspects of dispatching a copy thereof to the CIT-DR s office and other authorities (including the Assessing Officer) the time limit started from that point of time onwards and therefore the assessment herein framed on 23rd April 2021 are very well beyond the prescribed time period u/s 153 (3) of the Act. We indeed reiterate that neither the learned CIT (A) in lower appellate discussion nor any other documents filed at the Revenue s behest throw any light that the authorities concerned had not received the tribunal s first round remand order immediately after it was pronounced in open court. We thus place strong reliance on their lordships Full Bench decision; as upheld in Revenue s Special Leave Petition 2018 (7) TMI 1151 - SC ORDER to quash all the impugned assessments as time barred in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
Issues Presented and Considered
The core legal issues considered by the Tribunal in these batch appeals and cross appeals are:
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Validity of consequential assessments framed beyond prescribed limitation period under Section 153(3) Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act mandates that consequential assessments following an appellate order under Section 254 must be framed within 9 months from the end of the financial year in which the appellate order is received by the prescribed authorities (Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner, or Commissioner). The limitation period is thus statutory and strictly construed. The Tribunal referred extensively to the Full Bench decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd., which interpreted the analogous provision under Section 260A(2)(a) regarding limitation for filing appeals, holding that limitation begins from the date the order is received by any of the named officers, including the CIT (Judicial), and not necessarily the 'concerned' CIT. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the remand order dated 28.02.2019 was duly dispatched to the office of the learned departmental representative and other concerned authorities, including the Assessing Officers. The assessments impugned were framed on 23.04.2021, which is beyond the prescribed limitation period expiring on 31.12.2019 (9 months from the end of the financial year in which the order was received). The Tribunal applied the analogy from the Odeon Builders case, reasoning that since the legislative expressions in Section 153(3) and Section 260A(2)(a) are identical regarding receipt by designated officers, the limitation period under Section 153(3) should also commence upon receipt of the remand order by any of the officers named, including the CIT (Judicial) or the departmental representative. It was further emphasized that the Revenue failed to produce any evidence or rebuttal to show that the remand order was not received by the authorities immediately after pronouncement, and no administrative or procedural delay was demonstrated to postpone the limitation period. Key Evidence and Findings: The assessees produced a reply dated 27.11.2024 from the Tribunal's Registry under the Right to Information Act, 2005, confirming dispatch of the remand order to the office of the departmental representative along with acknowledgment. The Revenue did not contest or disprove this fact. Application of Law to Facts: Given the dispatch and receipt of the remand order in early 2019, the limitation period for framing consequential assessments expired on 31.12.2019. The assessments framed on 23.04.2021 were thus beyond the statutory time limit and hence invalid. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that the assessees failed to prove the exact date of receipt of the remand order by the assessing authorities, and therefore the limitation had not commenced. The Tribunal rejected this argument, holding that the statutory presumption favors the validity of the dispatch and receipt, especially since the Revenue did not produce contrary evidence. The Tribunal also dismissed the Revenue's contention that the Odeon Builders case was inapplicable, clarifying that the identical language in Sections 153(3) and 260A(2)(a) justifies applying the same principles. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the consequential assessments framed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 153(3) are void and nonest in law. Issue 2: Applicability of the Odeon Builders precedent and interpretation of receipt of appellate order for limitation purposes Legal Framework and Precedents: The Odeon Builders Full Bench decision clarified the meaning of "received" under Section 260A(2)(a) and rejected the notion that limitation begins only when the 'concerned' CIT receives the appellate order. It held that receipt by any of the named officers, including the CIT (Judicial), triggers the limitation period. The Court also held that departmental administrative instructions cannot override statutory limitation provisions. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found the reasoning in Odeon Builders directly applicable by analogy to Section 153(3) since the legislative language is identical regarding receipt of orders by designated officers. The Tribunal emphasized that the limitation clock starts once the remand order is received by any of the named officers, not necessarily the 'concerned' officer, and that internal departmental arrangements or changes in jurisdiction do not affect the limitation period. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the remand order was dispatched to and received by the departmental officers, including the CIT-DR and Assessing Officers, fulfilling the receipt requirement under the statute. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that the limitation period starts from the date of receipt of the remand order by any of the designated officers, which had occurred well before the assessments were framed. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that the Odeon Builders decision is irrelevant because it concerns appeal limitation under Section 260A was rejected. The Tribunal reasoned that the legislature's use of identical language in Section 153(3) warrants a consistent interpretation. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the limitation period under Section 153(3) begins from receipt of the appellate order by any of the designated officers, consistent with the principles laid down in Odeon Builders. Issue 3: Effect of administrative instructions and internal departmental arrangements on limitation Legal Framework and Precedents: The Odeon Builders decision clarified that administrative instructions issued by the Department for its own convenience cannot alter the statutory time from which limitation begins to run. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated that internal departmental arrangements or changes in jurisdiction do not affect the statutory limitation period. The statute governs the limitation period, and administrative convenience cannot override the law. Application of Law to Facts: No evidence was produced by the Revenue to show any deviation or delay in receipt of the remand order attributable to administrative instructions. Hence, the limitation period was not postponed or extended by any such internal arrangements. Conclusion: Administrative instructions have no bearing on the computation of limitation under Section 153(3). Issue 4: Burden of proof regarding receipt of appellate order by assessing authorities Legal Framework and Precedents: The burden lies on the Revenue to prove the date of receipt of the appellate order to trigger limitation. However, in absence of contrary evidence, statutory presumption favors the validity of dispatch and receipt. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the assessees produced documentary evidence from the Tribunal's Registry confirming dispatch and receipt. The Revenue failed to rebut this evidence or produce contrary proof. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the Revenue did not discharge its burden of proof and that the limitation period must be reckoned from the date of dispatch and receipt as evidenced. Significant Holdings "There is no dispute between the parties that such a consequential assessment ought to be framed within the period of 9 months from the end of the financial year in which the order under section 254 is passed, which in the facts of the present case, expired on 31st December, 2019. The impugned assessments in all these cases have admittedly been framed on 23rd April, 2021." "Once the tribunal had pronounced first round remand order of 28.02.2019 followed by the compliance to the necessary procedural aspects of dispatching a copy thereof to the learned CIT-DR's office and other authorities (including the Assessing Officer), the time limit started from that point of time onwards, and, therefore, the assessment herein framed on 23rd April, 2021 are very well beyond the prescribed time period u/s 153 (3) of the Act." "Instructions issued by the Department for its administrative convenience cannot alter the time when limitation would begin to run under Section 153(3) of the Act. These administrative instructions are for the administrative convenience of the Department and will not override the statute." "The receipt of a certified copy of the order of the ITAT by CIT (Judicial) would trigger the commencement of the limitation period under Section 153(3) of the Act." "The Revenue's failure to produce any evidence to show that the authorities concerned had not received the tribunal's remand order immediately after it was pronounced in open court leads to the conclusion that the assessments framed beyond the prescribed limitation period are void and nonest in law." The Tribunal conclusively held that all impugned assessments framed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act are invalid. It applied the principles laid down in the Full Bench decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. by analogy to the facts, emphasizing that limitation begins from the receipt of the appellate order by any of the designated officers, including the CIT (Judicial) or departmental representatives. The Tribunal rejected Revenue's contentions regarding lack of proof of receipt and inapplicability of the precedent. Administrative instructions or internal departmental arrangements were held irrelevant to limitation computation. Consequently, all appeals by the assessees were allowed, and the department's cross appeals were dismissed as the assessments were time barred. All other grounds on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.
|
