9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... search operation, certain documents relating to 'My Home Group' i.e., (i) M/s.Spinoza Enterprises (P) Limited, (ii) M/s.JBM Resorts (P) Limited, (iii) M/s.JBM Agros International (P) Limited and (iv) M/s. JBM Exports were found and seized by the Department. The respective jurisdictional officers issued notices under Section 153C of the Act to the above assesses for the Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2017-18. The aforesaid four assessee companies submitted their reply by contending that M/s.Spinoza Enterprises (P) Limited, M/s.JBM Resorts (P) Limited, M/s.JBM Agros International (P) Limited and M/s. JBM Exports were amalgamated with M/s.Jupally Real Estate Developers Pvt. Limited, the petitioner herein, with effect from 05.09.2019 pursuant to an order of National Company Law Tribunal dated 05.09.2019. Since the aforesaid four companies stood amalgamated with the petitioner, no action can be taken against them. The Department, in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited AIRONLINE 2019 SC 714, realised that notices issued against amalgamating entity after amalgamation is void because the said entity ceased to exist after amal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 30.12.2022. Instead, the starting point of limitation is the date of issuance of first notice under Section 153C of the Act i.e., 09.04.2021. This implies that the books of account or the documents or the assets seized were handed over to the assessing officer before 09.04.2021. By placing reliance on Section 127 of the Act which deals with transfer of cases between the assessing authorities, it is contended that it is an internal process and same cannot form basis for the purpose of extending/renewing or reviving the limitation. There exists no provision permitting such exclusion. 5. The next limb of argument is that the words 'handed over' used in proviso to Section 153B of the Act refers to handover of incriminating material from the seized agency to the assessing agency. It does not contemplate multiple transfers between different assessing authorities. If interpretation advanced by the Revenue is accepted, it would mean that any issue of limitation can be overcome by an internal process of centralisation. This cannot be the intention of the legislation while inserting proviso to Section 153B of the Act. Contention of the Revenue: 6. Representing the Revenue, Ms.K.Mamata, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A, within a period of twenty-one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed: Provided that in case of other person referred to in section 153C, the period of limitation for making the assessment or reassessment shall be the period as referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section or nine months from the end of the financial year in which books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over under section 153C to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, whichever is later." (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The interesting quagmire in this case is relating to starting point of limitation for the purpose of passing order of assessment. As noticed above, the parties are at loggerheads on the aspect of starting point. The stand of the petitioner is that the first notice was issued on 09.04.2021 which shows that the books of account, documents and assets seized came in possession of assessing officer before 09.04.2021. The petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsferor companies fade into insignificance and no limitation can be counted on the basis of the said notices. 14. Before dealing further, it is apposite to remind ourselves about general principles of construction in taxing statutes. In a classic passage LORD CAIRNS stated the principle thus: 'If the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Crown seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the subject within the letter of the law, the subject is free, however apparently within the spirit of law the case might otherwise appear to be. In other words, if there be admissible in any statute, what is called an equitable, construction, certainly, such a construction is not admissible in a taxing statute where you can simply adhere to the words of the statute (see Partington v.A.G. (1869) LR 4 HL 100). VISCOUNT SIMSON quoted with approval a passage from ROWLATT, J., expressing the principle in the following words: 'In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate on which the documents were handed over or deemed to have been handed over to the "Assessing Officer" of the "other person" such as these petitioners would be start running for computation of limitation from 31.03.2023. 106. Even if the Assessing officer of the "searched person" and that of the "other person" i.e the petitioner were same, it has to be construed that the officer concerned was wearing two different hats one as the "assessing officer" of the "searched person" and one as the "assessing officer" of the "other person". It would be different if they are different in which case it is the date of actual handing over of the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned." (Emphasis Supplied) 18. The Madras High Court considered a situation where assessing officer of the 'searched person' and 'other person' were same. Despite that, it opined that the officer performing two different duties was wearing two 'different hats'. 19. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the officer who conducted search on aforesaid four companies and the officer who has been given jurisdiction by order dated 27.12.2022 are same. We are unable to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
