9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the second revised return filed by the assessee. 2. Jurisdiction and legality of the CIT's order under Section 263. 3. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 670 to the case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Second Revised Return Filed by the Assessee: The assessee, a company, filed its original return on 28th Oct., 2002, and subsequently revised it twice on 18th July, 2003, and 8th Aug., 2003. The CIT issued a notice under Section 263, questioning the legality of the second processing order under Section 143(1) dated 30th June, 2004. The CIT argued that once an intimation under Section 143(1) is issued, the only way to alter it is through a notice under Section 143(2) or 147, or a rectification under Section 154. The CIT's view was that the revised returns could not be accepted without scrutiny. However, the Tribunal found that the revised returns filed by the assessee were within the statutory period allowed under Section 139(5) and thus were valid. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in S.R. Koshti vs. CIT and Hilltop Holdings India Ltd. vs. CIT, which supported the validity of revised returns filed within the prescribed time. 2. Jurisdiction and Legality of the CIT's Order Under Section 263: The CIT's order under Section 263 was challenged on the grounds that the second intimation under Section 143(1) was not erroneous and that the AO had taken one of the possible views. The Tribunal noted that for Section 263 to be invoked, the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the CIT failed to establish that the revised return and the subsequent intimation were erroneous. The Tribunal also emphasized that an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an assessment order and, therefore, cannot be revised under Section 263. This position was supported by the decisions in Hilltop Holdings India Ltd. and Kalyanpur Cement Ltd., which clarified that an intimation under Section 143(1) is not an order for the purposes of Section 263. 3. Applicability of CBDT Circular No. 670 to the Case: The CIT relied on CBDT Circular No. 670, which pertains to the consideration of belated refund claims. The Tribunal found that this circular was not relevant to the case at hand, as it dealt with belated refunds, which was not the issue before them. Therefore, the circular did not support the Revenue's case. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 by the CIT was without jurisdiction, a nullity, and void. The Tribunal directed the cancellation of the CIT's order, thereby allowing the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal principles established in previous judgments and the statutory provisions governing the filing and processing of revised returns.
|
