AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:
The appeals filed by the department of Revenue and applications for condonation of delay of 204 days in filing cross objections and cross objections filed by the assessee are against order dated 27.05.2025 of the ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of assessment orders dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively.
Ld. Authorized Representative for respondent/assessee/ cross objectors submitted that there is delay of 204 days in filing cross objections due to lack of knowledge of the impugned order. The explanation for delay in filing cross objections due to lack of knowledge of impugned order does not smack of mala fides as assessee has not gained anything by not filing cross objections. Therefore, delay of 204 days in filing cross objections is condoned.
Ld. Authorized Representative for respondent/assessee referred to cross objections to the appeals are as under:
“1.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessment order dated 30.09.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) is barred by limitation, hence without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
2.That the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 has been passed beyond the limitation period of 9 months from end of financial year of passing of revisionary order dated 31.03.2016 u/s 263 of the Act, as per Section 153(3) of the Act, and therefore deserved to be set-aside in toto.”
The assessment order is barred by limitation period of 9 months from end of financial year of passing of revisional order dated 31.03.2016 and 10.02.2017. Reliance was placed on order dated 16.04.2024 in ITA No. 2992/Del/2023 titled as “Susheel Sharma vs. ITO”.
Ld. Departmental Representative referred to provisions of Section 153(6) of the Act.
From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that revisional orders dated 31.03.2016 and 10.02.2017 u/s 263 of the Act are contained directions for fresh assessments. The period of 9 months from end of the financial years i.e. 2015-16 on 31.03.2016 would be 01.11.2016 and for financial year 2016-17 on 31.03.2017 would be 01.11.2017 respectively. The orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act giving effect to orders dated 31.03.2016 and 10.02.2017 were passed on 30.09.2021 for assessment years 2011-12 and 2013-14 respectively.
A Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in ITA No. 2992/Del/2023 titled as Susheel Sharma vs. ITO vide order dated 16.04.2024, in para No. 5 to 6, held as under:
“5.In the case in hand, admittedly, the following sequence of event occurred:-
(i)Original assessment order was passed on 20.02.2014;
(ii)The order u/s 263 of PCIT, Muzaffarnagar was passed on 16.02.2016 directing ‘fresh assessment’; and
(iii)The period of nine months from the end of the financial year AY 2015-16, on 31.03.2016 would be 1.11.2016.
(iv)The order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act giving effect to the order dated 16.02.2016 u/s 263 of the Act was however passed by the AO on 30.08.2017.
6.In the light of the sub-section (3) of section 153 of the Act, the effect giving order u/s 143 r.w.s. 263 should have been passed as per the provisions of section within 9 months upto 1.11.2016. However, apparently, the same is beyond the said period and, thus, the effect giving order is barred by limitation. We accordingly allow the additional ground.”
In view of above material facts by following the judicial precedents, it is held that as per sub section (3) of Section 153 of the Act, the orders giving effect u/s 143 r.w.s. 263 of the Act had to be passed within 9 months i.e. up to 01.11.2016 and 01.11.2017 respectively. However, the orders giving effects were passed on 30.09.2021 after expiry of period of limitation. Accordingly, cross objections filed by the response/assessee are allowed.
Because decision of cross objections, the appeals filed by the Revenue being infructuous do not require adjudication. Accordingly, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
In the result, the applications for condonation of delay of 204 days in filing cross objections and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.