9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT under section 263 of the IT Act. 2. Limitation period for passing orders under section 263. 3. Application of the Limitation Act in tax matters. Analysis: The case involves an appeal against an order passed by the CIT under section 263 of the IT Act, directing the ITO to reframe the assessment after giving the assessee an opportunity to explain his case. The CIT found the original assessment erroneous for not including the value of primary gold found in the assessee's locker, which was claimed to be received as a gift. The Tribunal initially set aside the CIT's order due to inadequate opportunity given to the assessee for a hearing. Upon a miscellaneous application by the assessee, the Tribunal recalled its initial order and fixed the appeal for re-hearing. The assessee contended that the CIT's order under section 263 was barred by limitation, citing relevant case laws. The Departmental Representative argued in favor of the CIT's action, invoking the provisions of the Limitation Act to extend the time period for passing the order. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 263(2) of the IT Act before the amendment and relevant case laws. It noted that the limitation period for the CIT to exercise jurisdiction under section 263 was two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. The Tribunal observed that the CIT's order, passed on 13th March 1978, exceeded this limitation period, rendering it void ab initio. Citing decisions by the Supreme Court and High Courts of Delhi and Karnataka, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT's order under section 263 was without jurisdiction and allowed the appeal of the assessee. In summary, the Tribunal held that the CIT's order under section 263 was beyond the limitation period prescribed by the IT Act, making it void. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods in tax matters and set aside the CIT's order, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.
|
