9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 18th February, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') by not completing assessment in time as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and consequently not issuing the refund and the jewellery seized in the course to the petitioner. Brief facts: - 2. On 13th August 2002 a survey under Section 133A and search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of Late Mr. Lakhpatrai Agarwal. 3. During search, jewellery pertaining to the petitioner was seized and the petitioner's father gave a statement under Section 132(4) of the Act admitting to undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 28,04,308/-. 4. Thereafter, a notice under Section 158BC of the Act was issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement made by the bank manager or rebut the claims made by him with evidence. A miscellaneous application was filed by the petitioner before the ITAT to bring on record certain facts that purportedly were recorded incorrectly inadvertently in the order dated 18th February 2010 that came to be dismissed in July 2011. 8. On 6th March 2018, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent, to bring on record the fact that since the AO had not acted upon the order dated 18th February 2010 passed by the ITAT by which the matter was remanded back, as per Section 153(3) of the Act the time limit for completion of such assessment proceedings viz. nine months had elapsed and consequently the respondent was called upon to refund Rs.7,39,083/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onse to the two follow up emails dated 14th February 2022 and 18th April 2022 to the 10th January 2022 email addressed to the Principal CCIT, Revenue Secretary and the Chairman of CBDT. 13. The learned counsel submitted that on 13th July 2022, the petitioner received an intimation letter along with notice under Section 143(2) r/w. Section 158BC(c) r/w. Section 254 of the Act from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (7), Pune, stating that the ITAT has set aside the order and remanded the matter to the AO. Further notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 1st May 2022 fixing a date of hearing on 8th August 2022. In view of the aforesaid it was submitted that the petitioner filed the present petition for seeking refund of the tax paid and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of the Act and violated of principles of natural justice. 17. He submitted that in view of the inaction on the part of the AO for a considerable period of time beyond stipulated period and not granting refund to the petitioner is ex-facie contrary to Articles 265A and 300 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the prayers in the petition deserve to be granted as prayed. 18. The learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon the wordings of section 153(3) which reads as under: " Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 6th March 2018 would not entitle the Petitioner to contend commencement of the limitation period. 21. The learned counsel relied upon paragraphs 4.3 to 4.8 of the reply to show the steps taken by the respondents pursuant to the ITAT order dated 18th February 2010. 22. He submitted that the proceedings u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 158BC r.w.s 254 were pending and the order would be finalised after giving ample opportunity to the Petitioner and will also clarify whether there will be refund or demand in the said case; and refund if any would be made in due course. He submitted that the Petition accordingly deserved to be dismissed. Conclusion: 23. We have heard the counsels at length and have also perused the proceedings. 24. It is not in disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, receives the copy of the order. We don't agree as it does not appear to be the intention of the legislature. We are unable to accede to the contention of the respondent to construe the words "is received" in section 153(3) to mean "till its received" and thereby extend the limitation in perpetuity. It has to be a reasonable period of time especially when the respondents are a party to the proceeding. 27. Be that as it may, the respondents who were party to the proceedings could have requested for a copy of the order from the ITAT at least a month after the order was passed on 18th February 2010. One would have at least expected that after receiving the letter from the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
