TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner; therefore, the onus would lie on the respondent to prove that they had not received the said order. If we had to accept the contention of the Respondent it would have led to extending the time for compliance with the order dated 18th February 2010 for almost 12 years at least in this case. Further, it would lead to shifting the onus on the assessee to oversee 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. 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 Petitioner on 6th March 2018 the respondent could have requested for a copy from the ITAT, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not adequate to meet the discrepancy in the FDRs. On 29th December, 2004, the block assessment order under Section 158BC(c) of the Act was passed assessing Rs. 52,82,278/- as against the declared return of income of Rs. 28,04,308/-. 6. Being aggrieved by the block assessment order and the addition made thereto, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short CIT(A) ) who passed an order confirming the additions made by the AO in the block assessment order. 7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CIT(A), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT, partly allowed the appeal citing violations of principles of natural justice on the ground that the petitioner ought to have been allowed to cross examine the statement 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 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 return of the jewellery seized. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 153(3) provides that any order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under Section 254, 263 or 264 should be made within a period of 9 months from the end of the financial year in which the order is received consequently, the AO now seeking to give effect to the said order of the ITAT dated 18th February 2010 is time barred. 15. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Bhan Textile (P) Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 176 (Delhi), in support of his contention that the AO seeking to give effect to the order dated 18th February 2010 is barred by limitation. He further relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in the case of Dr. R. P. Patel v/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 [2014] 51 Taxmann.com pg. 81 (cochin) which held that even if one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... page 138 of their reply dated 28th September 2022 to contend that the ITO has not received the order dated 18th February 2010 therefore the time period prescribed by Section 153(3) of the IT Act will not commence and consequently their action was within the time prescribed and was required to be completed on or before 30th September 2023. 20. The Learned Counsel further contended that receipt of the letter dated 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 dispute that the DCIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
