TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f assessment u/s 153(1) of the Act, which was within 21 months. In the assesee`s case, the assessment was not framed/passed by the Assessing Officer within 21 months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, that is, on 31.12.2019. AO has passed/framed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.09.2021, which is beyond the time-limit for completion of assessment u/s 153(1) of the Act. Therefore, assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer is in violation of the provisions of section 153(1) of the Act, which is bad in law, hence we quash the assessment order, dated 30.09.2021, framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, being void ab initio. Assessment order framed by the AO was not in accordance with law, therefore we have quashed the assessment order. - ITA No.431 And 440/SRT/2022, ITA No. 432 And 436/SRT/2022, ITA No. 350 And 346/SRT/2022, ITA No. 351 And 347/SRT/2022 - - - Dated:- 24-4-2023 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Dr. A.L.Saini, AM For the Assessee : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A Shri Pawan Jagetia, CA And Shri Anand Chourasia, C.A For the Respondent : Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR ORDER PER BENCH: This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of suppressed profits on sale of goods (diamonds) of Rs.9,72,422/- @ 2% of sales made to disputed parties of Rs.4,86,21,078/-. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.26,73,775/- @ 2% of purchase of goods (diamonds) made from disputed parties of Rs.13,36,88,750/-. 4.The Ld. CIT(A) before estimating the addition of suppressed profits on disputed purchase and sale of goods of Rs.36,46,197/-, ought to have considered the understated vital facts, being; a) The exhaustive documentary evidences such as sale bills, purchase bills, sale bills, Ledge/confirmation of account, stock register, Quantity tally, bank statements and I.T. acknowledgement receipts of disputed parties had been filed on record; b) The entire payments had been made/received only through banking channel by A/c payee cheques/RTGS; c) The additions/disallowance made relying on the statement of 3rd parties recorded at bank of appellant and without allowing an opportunity of cross-examination is unjustified. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have estimated the suppressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is bad-in-law, since it had been passed beyond the limitation period specified u/s 153(1) of the Act 8. From the above ground of appeal, it is vivid that assessee has already taken the original ground No.1 raised by the assessee, along with Form No.36, which is akin to an additional ground raised by the assessee before this Tribunal. Therefore, we note that ld Counsel for the assessee as well as ld DR for the Revenue, both have misunderstood/confused whether it is an additional ground. No doubt, the assessee has taken an additional ground before this Tribunal, which is akin and similar to original ground No.1 raised by the assessee, hence there was no need to raise such additional ground by the assessee, as the original ground No.1 raised by the assessee is sufficient to adjudicate the legal issue involved. 9. We agree with the ld DR for the Revenue that assessee has raised first time in the original grounds of appeal a legal issue challenging the validity of assessment/reassessment proceedings stating that assessment/reassessment had been passed beyond the limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the extended period allowed by the Income Tax Act. Therefore, assessment should not be time barred and assessment framed by the Assessing Officer should not be quashed. Apart from this, Ld. CIT-DR submitted before the Bench a written submission about the time limit, which is reproduced below: This case as selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2018-19/1012656394(1) was issued on 27.09.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 30.09.2021 determining total income of Rs.57,44,33,240/-. The assessee as well as department both preferred the appeal before your honour. During the course of appellate proceedings, these company has filed additional ground on 17.3.2023, relevant part of the same which is reproduced as hereunder: The assessee prefers an additional ground of appeal against an order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-4, Surat dated 28/09/2022 on following amongst other grounds each of which are without prejudice to any other:- 1.0 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 30/09/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification S.O 4805(E) [No.93/2020/F. No.370142/35/2020-TPL] 31.03.2021 Copy enclosed 3 Notification S.O 1703(E) [No.38/2021/F. No.370142/35/2020-TPL] 30.04.2021 Copy enclosed 4 Press Release dated 21.04.2021 30.06.2021 Copy enclosed 5 Notification S.O. 2580(E) [No.74/2021/F. No.370142/35/2020-TPL] 30.09.2021 Copy enclosed 2. In view of the above Notification and Press Release the time limit was extended passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act upto 30th September-2021. The Order in question was passed on 30.09.2021 which is in due time hence not barred from limitation period specified in section u/s 153(1) of the Act. Therefore, the additional ground taken by the assessee is not maintainable. 2.1 In the light of above facts, I pray before your honour that the additional ground taken by the assessee may kindly be rejected. 14. We heard both sides in detail and also perused th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should have passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on or before 31.12.2019. However, the Assessing Officer has passed/framed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.09.2021, which is beyond the time-limit for completion of assessment u/s 153(1) of the Act. Therefore, based on this factual position, clearly the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer is time barred and hence liable to be quashed. 16. We do not agree with arguments advanced by the Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue to the effect that assessee s case falls in the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 because The Taxation and other Laws (relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 came into effect from 20.03.2020 to December, 2020 and further the time limit was extended upto 30.09.2021.Therefore, we note that assessee s case does not fall even in the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 because The Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 came into effect from 20.03.2020 to December, 2020 and further the time-limit was e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oration of Evidence. Another policy underlying statutes of limitation is the policy of avoiding deterioration of evidence. Like the policy of promoting repose, however, avoiding deterioration of evidence serves several distinct but overlapping purposes: (a) to ensure accuracy in fact finding; (b) to prevent the assertion of fraudulent claims; (c) to reduce the costs of litigation; and (d) to preserve the integrity of the legal system. (iii) Place Assessee and Revenue on an Equal Footing. One of the most powerful policies supporting limitation of actions is the concern that the passage of time will not only result in the deterioration of evidence, but that it will also allow the Assessee to gain an unfair advantage over the Revenue or reverse situation may happen. Many cases have recognized that one of the purposes of a limitation system is to avoid making it unreasonably difficult for defendants to answer the claims against them. (iv) Encourage the Prompt Enforcement of Substantive Law. Arguably, the central purpose of law is to guide behavior. 19. Conclusion: At the cost of repetition, we state that assessment/reassessment framed/passed by the Assessing Officer is in vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
