9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax to revise assessments covered by limitation under section 263(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI-A raised the issue of whether the Commissioner of Income-tax had the jurisdiction to revise assessments already covered by limitation under section 263(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984. The Tribunal considered the facts of the cases, including the dates of assessments, service of notice under section 263, and the dates on which limitation had struck the proceedings. The parties agreed to address the issue of limitation first, as a determination in favor of limitation would make it unnecessary to consider the merits of the case. The legal arguments primarily focused on the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in light of the amended provision. The counsel for the assessees contended that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue orders under section 263 as the notices were issued after the limitation period provided under the original section 263(2) before its substitution in 1984. Citing various authorities, the counsel argued that the orders made by the Commissioner were void ab initio due to lack of lawful authority. Additionally, it was argued that the Commissioner failed to consider a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which clarified that no action should be taken under the substituted section 263(2) for assessments where limitation had already expired. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions of both parties and referred to legal precedents, including the Supreme Court rulings in Lal & Co. and Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt cases. It was noted that the highest court had established that a remedy lost by the expiry of the limitation period cannot be revived using a new provision. The Tribunal found that in the cases before them, the limitation had already expired before the amended section 263(2) came into effect, thereby rendering the orders made by the Commissioner without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Based on the analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and the specific facts of the cases, the Tribunal held that the impugned orders made by the Commissioner were without jurisdiction and non est in law. The Tribunal also highlighted a circular from the CBDT emphasizing the importance of passing orders under section 263 within the specified time frame. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the orders made under section 263 in each case, as they were deemed to be void. The appeals were allowed in favor of the assessees.
|
