9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 798 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - period of limitation - Subsidy by way of sales tax incentive received - revenue or capital receipt - Held that - Notice under section 263(1) has been issued with reference to reassessment, apparently to cover up the bar of limitation. The reason obvious is that judicial precedents have made out a difference in a case where the entire assessment is reopened and a fresh reassessment order is passed and in a case where one or two items of assessment order are reassessed and reconsidered and in other respect, initial assessment order is maintained. Considering the fact that impugned notice dated June 8, 2016 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income- tax, NOIDA, Gautambudh Nagar is in reference to some discrepancy in original assessment order dated October 31, 2011 and not reassessment order dated March 26, 2015, therefore, limitation would run from the date of regular order of assessment and in that view of the matter, impugned notice, evidently is barred by limitation prescribed under section 263(2) of Act, 1961. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned notice issued under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the impugned notice issued under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation: The petitioner, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., challenged the notice dated June 8, 2016, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, alleging that it was barred by limitation. The relevant assessment year was 2007-08, and the original assessment order was passed on October 31, 2011. The reassessment order was later passed on March 26, 2015. The petitioner contended that the limitation period for the notice under section 263(1) should commence from the end of the financial year in which the original assessment order was passed, i.e., March 31, 2012, making the notice dated June 8, 2016, void due to the two-year limitation period expiring on March 31, 2014. Conversely, the respondent argued that the limitation period should commence from the date of the reassessment order dated March 26, 2015, making the notice within the limitation period. The court examined whether the limitation under section 263(2) would commence from the original assessment order dated October 31, 2011, or the reassessment order dated March 26, 2015. The court noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated for a specific issue (non-deduction of tax at source on purchases from overseas), and the reassessment order did not address the sales tax subsidy issue, which was the subject of the notice under section 263. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd., which held that the limitation period for section 263(1) should be counted from the original assessment order if the reassessment order did not address the same subject matter. The court also cited other judgments, including CIT v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, which supported the view that the limitation period should commence from the original assessment order if the reassessment order dealt with different issues. Based on these precedents and the facts of the case, the court concluded that the notice under section 263(1) was issued with reference to a discrepancy in the original assessment order dated October 31, 2011, and not the reassessment order dated March 26, 2015. Therefore, the limitation period should commence from the date of the original assessment order, making the impugned notice dated June 8, 2016, barred by limitation under section 263(2). Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned notice dated June 8, 2016, and awarded costs of ?20,000 to the petitioner. The notice was deemed barred by limitation as per section 263(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
