9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 2111 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Period of limitation - HELD THAT - The order passed by the CIT u/s.263 is dated 30.03.2014 and it was sent to the assessee by Speed Post on 05.04.2014, copy of receipt of the Speed Post is placed on record. AR could not file evidence that the order was passed after the said date and we rely on decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sophia Study Circle 2013 (6) TMI 355 - ITAT CUTTACK - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Compliance with limitation period for passing the order u/s. 263. 3. Application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) in passing the assessment order. 4. Rejection of accounts by resorting to estimate and subsequent addition based on the same accounts. 5. Consideration of written reply submitted by the appellant by the CIT. 6. Existence of two possible views and loss of revenue. 7. Communication of the order as a condition precedent for its effectiveness. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed challenging the order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as illegal, uncalled for, and without any basis. The appellant argued that the order was barred by limitation as it was not received within the prescribed period. The appellant emphasized the importance of issuing the order to make it complete and effective, citing relevant case laws. 2. The AO had made an adhoc disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee, implying a rejection of accounts. The appellant contended that no further addition could be made based on the same accounts, supported by relevant case laws. 3. The CIT directed the AO to redo the assessment, finding the previous order to be without application of mind. The appellant argued that the written reply submitted by them should have been judicially considered by the CIT, as failing to do so rendered the order void u/s. 263. 4. The appellant raised concerns regarding the existence of two possible views and loss of revenue, asserting that such a situation should not be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. During the hearing, the appellant focused on the additional ground related to the communication of the order u/s. 263, contending that it was not issued within the limitation period. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT on this ground, dismissing the appeal. 6. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument regarding the limitation period for passing the order u/s. 263, relying on a previous decision and emphasizing the importance of differentiating between the terms 'made' and 'served' in the relevant sections of the Act. 7. As the appellant did not argue on other grounds raised in the appeal, and since the Tribunal upheld the CIT's order on the limitation issue, the other grounds became infructuous and were dismissed. Ultimately, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal. This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal arguments and decisions made by the Appellate Tribunal.
|
