TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009 issued under Section 263 of the Act. Section 263(2) of the Act provides that no order would be made in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Act after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. Commissioner of Income Tax has not exercised revisional jurisdiction in respect of order/intimation passed Section 143(1) of the Act within two years of it being passed. Therefore, exercise of jurisdiction on those issues under Section 263 of the Act is time barred as held by this Court in CIT vs. Anderson Marine & Sons (P) Ltd. [2003 (12) TMI 47 - BOMBAY High Court] – Decided against the Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. 2426 of 2011, Income Tax Appeal No. 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rverse or there is no direct nexus between a conclusion and a primary fact and when the decision is not only absurd but totally arbitrary and lack of base, cannot the same be revised by CIT, by invoking his powers u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act 1961? This would be with specific reference to the fact that a question of fact convert itself to a question of law in such cases when principle of arriving at a proper decision itself have been violated then the principle itself becomes a question to be interpreted. This makes it a question of law. c) Whether the ITAT is justified in applying inappropriate case law (293 ITR 1 SC and 325 ITR 574 Bom.) when the issues involved in the matter do not concern the case law (the grounds of limitation rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopening notice, the Assessing Officer on 28 June 2006 completed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act arriving at a total income of Rs.56.12 lacs. This addition of Rs.25.14 lacs to the income was made under Section 40A(3) of the Act on account of cash purchases from M/s. Verma Pharmaceuticals amounting to Rs.1.25 crores. The order dated 28 June 2006 dealt with only the issues raised in reopening notice. 6) On 17 March 2009 the Commissioner of Income Tax issued a show cause notice to the respondent under Section 263 of the Act seeking to revise the order dated 28 June 2006 passed during reassessment proceeding. The issues raised in the above notice under Section 263 of the Act sought to revise the issues de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 28 June 2006 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, it held that the Commissioner of Income Tax would have no jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under Section 263 of the Act on those issues. Therefore, the impugned order holds that jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act is time barred. In support of its aforesaid conclusion, reliance was placed in the impugned order upon the decision of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 293 ITR 1(SC) and of this Court in Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2010) 325 ITR 574 (Bom.). 10) The revenue's grievance as canvassed by Mr. Charanjeet Chandrapal learned Counsel for the revenue is that the period of limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which the revisional jurisdiction is being exercised were admittedly issues which arose in the proceeding/assessment done prior to reopening of the assessment. In view of passage of time jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 263 of the Act with regard to assessment done under Section 143(1)of the Act had lapsed. Ms. Vasanti Patel further submits that the Tribunal has merely followed the binding decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of Alagendran Finance Ltd. (supra) and of this Court Ashoka Buildcon Ltd.(supra). Consequently, no question of law arises for consideration by this Court. 12) We have considered the rival submissions. It is not disputed that save and except the issue of non genuine purchases all other issues dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment done earlier under the Act. 13) In the above view, we find no fault with the order of the Tribunal in allowing the respondent's appeal. The submission of Mr. Chandrapal, learned Counsel for the Revenue is that in case of bogus bills and non genuine purchases i. e. where the State is being defrauded the limitation as provided under Section 263 of the Act be ignored, cannot be accepted. This is for the reason that neither the Tribunal or we in our appellate jurisdiction can ignore the mandate of limitation provided under the Act. This is an issue which would fall within the domain of the Parliament so as to make suitable amendment to the law after considering the various competing interests. So far as the submission of Mr. Chandrapal l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
