TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2013 - Sri R. S. Syal, AM And Sri George Mathan, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri M. D. Shah, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Apurba Kr. Das, CIT(DR) ORDER Per Shri George Mathan, JM. This is a Stay Petition filed by the assessee against the operation of order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-XVIII. 2. Shri M.D.Shah, Advocate represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Apurba Kr.Das, CIT(DR) represented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that originally an assessment had been completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on 29.12.2010. It was the submission that the said assessment order was a subject matter of revision u/s 263 vide order dated 20.03.2013. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject matter". Thus admittedly if there is an absolute lack of jurisdiction when the ld. CIT passed order u/s 263, admittedly one could look towards considering whether any interim order is called for. Such lack of inherent jurisdiction has not been shown in the present case. However, a perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of ITO vs Khalid Mehdi Khan reported in 110 ITR 79 (AP) has under similar circumstances categorically held that "while granting stay or any other interlocutory order, the Tribunal shall have to keep in mind period of limitation prescribed in section 153(2A) and pass orders in light of same." The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs ITAT WP (C) No.4684 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay of proceedings in respect of the consequential order passed under section 263. It was the submission that once stay petition is granted, normally it operates for 180 days and another extension of 180 days could be granted resulting. a total loss of one year time. It was the submission that extension of the limitation in respect of Stay of proceedings provided in section 153 .. The Explanation 1 thereto did not permit for the exclusion in respect of. the period of limitation.' It was the submission that Stay of the proceedings should not be granted. . . . . . 5. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the claim of ld. DR that the exclusion provided in the Explanation 1 to section 153 does not cover the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
