2014 (7) TMI 560 - HC - Income Tax

Time barred order u/s 153A and 153D lack of jurisdiction - order pursuant to search and seizure Held that - This fact was brought to notice by the assessee on 18-03-2014 and the Revenue is directed to seek appropriate instructions from the Revenue - Revenue is not challenging the orders of the Tribunal dated 23-12-2013 and has decided to accept the same - there is a finding of the Tribunal that the proceedings were time barred - there was an inherent lack of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proceedings since they were time barred - there is no point in continuing with the proceedings whereby the Commissioner taking suo-motu action has directed that fresh assessment be done thus, the order is set aside only on the ground that the assessment orders themselves being time barred no further action, even suo-motu action, can be continued Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Disposal of appeals involving identical questions of law and facts for different assessment years.
- Validity of assessment orders passed under Sections 143(3)/153A and 153D of the Income Tax Act.
- Commissioner's suo-motu cognizance under Section 263 of the Act.
- Orders of the Commissioner deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.
- Appeals filed under Section 260A against the Commissioner's orders.
- Challenge on the grounds of time-barred assessment orders.
- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision on the assessment orders being barred by limitation.
- Revenue's decision not to challenge the Tribunal's orders.
- Lack of jurisdiction due to time-barred proceedings.
- Decision to set aside orders due to time-barred assessment.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Tripura High Court pertains to the disposal of five appeals concerning a common issue but for different assessment years. The appellant, an income tax assessee running a bonded warehouse, had undergone search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act in 2005. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 153A for filing returns of income. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax then passed assessment orders under Sections 143(3)/153A and 153D, holding the assessee liable for taxes and initiating proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).

Two separate proceedings ensued, with the appellant appealing the assessment orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner taking suo-motu cognizance under Section 263, deeming the orders erroneous and prejudicial to revenue's interest. The Commissioner set aside the assessment orders and directed reassessment, leading to appeals filed by the assessee under Section 260A before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The Tribunal, in a significant decision, found the assessment orders for the years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 to be time-barred and quashed them. The Revenue, upon being informed of this decision, chose not to challenge it. Consequently, the High Court acknowledged the lack of jurisdiction due to the time-barred proceedings and ruled to set aside the orders, emphasizing that no further action, even suo-motu, could be pursued if the initial assessment was time-barred.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing that since the assessment orders were time-barred, no further action could be taken, including reassessment. The court directed the records, if any, to be sent down promptly, bringing closure to the legal proceedings.