9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 335 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment order passed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) - Extension of period of limitation u/s 153B(1) - reference made by the revenue to Swiss authorities - whether the reference made by the revenue to Swiss authorities requesting for information under Article 26 of Indo swiss treaty for provision of exchange of information pertaining to the assessee for AY 2008-09 is valid thereby providing the extension of one year to assessing officer for completing the assessment under Explanation (ix) to section 153B? - HELD THAT - As relying on Praveen Sawhney vs ACIT 2023 (7) TMI 1139 - ITAT DELHI the information sought for pertaining to the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 could not have been received by the revenue since Article 26 of the Indo Swiss Treaty regarding exchange of information is applicable for information that relates to the period on or after 1st April, 2011 and therefore is not a valid reference. In the light of these discussions, we hold that the claim of the revenue that period of limitation is extended by one year under section 153B based on the reference is not tenable and in assessee s case, the assessment should have been completed on or before 31/12/2015. Accordingly the order passed by the A.O. 153A read with section 143(3) dated 29/12/2016 is clearly barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed.
Issues Involved:
1. Admission of Additional Ground. 2. Validity of Assessment Order based on Limitation Period. 3. Applicability of Indo-Swiss Treaty for Exchange of Information. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Admission of Additional Ground The assessee raised an additional ground contending that the assessment order is barred by time and hence illegal. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground for adjudication, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), as it was a purely legal issue not requiring investigation of new facts. Issue 2: Validity of Assessment Order based on Limitation Period The assessee argued that the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 was barred by limitation as the search was conducted on 11/03/2014, and as per section 153B(i), the assessment should have been completed by 31/12/2015. The Assessing Officer claimed an extension by one year under Explanation (ix) to section 153B due to a reference to FT & TR. However, the Tribunal found that the reference made by the revenue on 08.08.2016 was invalid as per the Indo-Swiss Treaty, which applies only to information from fiscal years beginning on or after 1st April 2011. Consequently, the assessment order passed on 29/12/2016 was deemed barred by limitation and quashed. Issue 3: Applicability of Indo-Swiss Treaty for Exchange of Information The Tribunal examined the Indo-Swiss Treaty and confirmed that the exchange of information under Article 26 is applicable only for information relating to fiscal years beginning on or after 1st April 2011. Since the reference made by the revenue pertained to AY 2008-09, it was invalid. This invalidity negated the one-year extension claimed by the Assessing Officer under Explanation (ix) to section 153B. The Tribunal supported this conclusion by referring to similar cases, including Praveen Sawhney vs ACIT (2023) 224 TTJ 46 (Del). Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the assessment order dated 29/12/2016 as it was barred by limitation. The additional grounds raised by the assessee were admitted and adjudicated in their favor, rendering other grounds on merits academic and not warranting separate adjudication. The appeal of the assessee was allowed. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 31/10/2023.
|
