TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to a specific situation where upon search and seizure operation, if new material is found, already completed assessments are revisited. Had Parliament not prescribed such a specific period of limitation, possibly, the assessee’s concern would have successfully urged that search and seizure proceedings would be confined only to the concerned year in which the search operation took place. It was proposed to tide over such situation. The only provision that prescribed a period of limitation in respect of remands at the relevant time at least in this case is Section 153(2A). In that sense, that period of limitation prescribed for completion of remand (nine months) constituted a special provision, which applies to every class of remand regardless whether they originate from assessments/re- assessments/revisions or search and seizure assessments. In these circumstances, completion of the assessment proceedings for the block period by the impugned order dated 22.12.2017 was clearly beyond the period of limitation. As noticed earlier, the last date by which the remand order could have been worked out validly was 31.12.2016. The petitions have to succeed. The impugned order pursuant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the AO in this case was only up-to 31.12.2016, for working out of the remand and completing the assessment. 3. The revenue resisted the proceedings and urged that the impugned order was made within the time prescribed. Firstly, it is urged that petitioners cannot be heard to complain as they did not attend to the queries and co-operate in an assessment proceeding which got delayed. Learned counsel emphasized that as a result the petitioners could not be given any discretionary relief given that the petitioner was an entry provider/facilitator and that the search resulted in addition of `70 crores as income in his hand. Secondly, it was argued that the plain reading of Section 153A of the Act would reveal that it overrides the other provisions of the Act because of the non-obstante clause. Elaborating further, it was submitted that period of limitation prescribed by Section 153B i.e. two years is substantial that excludes search assessment and therefore, excludes applicability of Section 153(2A) which is general and governs all demands other than those concerning search assessment. 4. The question as to what would be the starting point of limitation with respect to any p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Act ? Does it mean received by any of the named officers including the Commissioner of Income-tax (Judicial)? Answer : The word received occurring in section 260A (2) (a) would mean received by any of the named officers of the Department, including Commissioner of Income-tax (Judicial). The provision at present names four particular officers i.e. the Principal Commissioner, Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. These are the only designations of the officers who could receive a copy of the order. In the absence of a qualifying prefix concerned , the receipt of a copy of the order of the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal by any of those officers in the Department including the Commissioner of Income-tax (Judicial) will trigger the period of limitation. Question: (ii) Does limitation begin to run for the purposes of Section 260A (2)(a) only when a certified copy of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is received by the concerned Commissioner of Income-tax within whose jurisdiction the case of the assessee falls n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, it will not have the effect of postponing the commencement of the period of limitation in terms of section 260A(2)(a) of the Act. The statute is not concerned with the internal arrangements that the Department may make by changing the jurisdiction of its officers. It is for the officer of the Department who first receives a copy of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal s order to reach it in time to the officer who has to take a decision regarding the filing of an appeal. Question : (iv) After the decision of this court in CIT v. Sudhir Choudhrie [2005]278 ITR 490 (Delhi), do the decisions in CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. [1992] 193 ITR 330 and CIT v. ITAT [2000] 245 ITR 659 (Delhi) require to be reconsidered, explained or reconciled? Answer : The decisions in CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) and CIT v. ITAT (supra) were rendered in the context of Section 256 of the Act (and not Section 260A(2)(a) of the Act) and also prior to the decision in CIT v. Sudhir Choudhrie (supra). While the former decisions may not require reconsideration, they require to be reconciled with the latter decision in CIT v. Sudhir Choudhrie (supra). The decisions in CIT v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income-tax (Judicial) would trigger the commencement of the limitation period under Section 260 A (2) (a) of the Act. Question : (vii) In the context of a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal covering several appeals, whether limitation for all the appeals would begin to run when the certified copy is received first by either the Commissioner of Income-tax (Judicial) or any one of the officers of the Department mentioned in Section 260 A (2) (a) or only when the Commissioner of Income-tax concerned receives it? Where the same Commissioner of Income-tax has jurisdiction over more than one assessee in the batch, will limitation begin to run for all such appeals when such Commissioner of Income-tax receives the order in either of the assessee's cases? Answer : Where there, is a common order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal covering the several appeals, limitation would begin to run when a certified copy is received first by either the Commissioner of Income-tax (Judicial) or one of the officers of the Department and not only when the Commissioner of Income-tax concerned receives it. When the same Commissioner of Income-tax has jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The relevant provision which applies at that point of time for purpose of this case, reads as follows: (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1), (1A), (1B) and (2), in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1971 and any subsequent assessment year, an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under Section 250 or section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the order under Section 250 or section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under Section 263 or Section 264 is passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner 7. During the relevant period when the assessment was completed, the period prescribed was nine months (on account of substitution carried out by the amendment). The special provision under Section 153B of the Act in the opinion of the Court carves out a special period of limitation without which sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
