9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1385 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - capital gain was not computed as per the provisions of section 50C - assessment order was rectified of not considering the provisions of section 50C - Held that - We find that assessment in this case was originally completed under section 143(3) on December 17, 2011 and the order was rectified under section 154 on December 19, 2013 whereby the Assessing Officer had rectified the mistake of not considering the provisions of section 50C in the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, the date of issue of notice under section 263 is January 27, 2014 which is after the date of the rectified order dated December 19, 2013. The order dated December 17, 2011 which was sought to be rectified, did not exist. The assessee in response to the notice under section 263 had brought this matter to the notice of the Commissioner of Income-tax but the Commissioner of Income-tax without considering the submissions, passed order under section 263 for initiating proceedings de novo which is not legally valid and is not based upon the facts of the present case. Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to pass order under section 263 against the order dated December 17, 2011 which already stood merged with the order under section 154 dated December 19, 2013. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Appeal against order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, validity of rectification of assessment order, jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax to pass order under section 263, relevance of rectified order in revision proceedings, applicability of judicial pronouncements in similar cases. Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal against order under section 263 The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant also filed a stay application for staying the proceedings by the Assessing Officer in consequence of the order passed under section 263. Issue 2: Validity of rectification of assessment order The learned authorised representative argued that the assessment order was rectified under section 154 to correct the capital gain computation not done as per section 50C. The rectified order dated December 19, 2013, superseded the original assessment order dated December 17, 2011. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued notice under section 263 for the same reason, but the rectified order was not considered, and instead, the entire assessment was set aside for de novo proceedings. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Income-tax The appellant contended that the Commissioner of Income-tax lacked jurisdiction to pass an order under section 263 against the original assessment order dated December 17, 2011, which was already merged with the rectified order dated December 19, 2013. Citing legal precedents, including CIT v. Kalyan Solvent Extraction Ltd. and CIT v. Ansal Properties and Ind. Ltd., it was argued that once an assessment order is rectified, only the rectified order can be revised under section 263. Issue 4: Relevance of rectified order in revision proceedings The Tribunal found that the rectified order dated December 19, 2013, corrected the mistake in the original assessment regarding section 50C, rendering the notice under section 263 invalid. The Commissioner of Income-tax's failure to consider the rectified order before initiating de novo proceedings was deemed legally invalid based on established legal principles. Issue 5: Applicability of judicial pronouncements in similar cases The Tribunal relied on judicial pronouncements in cases like CIT v. Kalyan Solvent Extraction Ltd. and CIT v. Ansal Properties and Ind. Ltd. to conclude that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 263 against an assessment order that had already been rectified. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section 263 and allowed the appeal of the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the order passed under section 263 was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. The stay application filed became infructuous and was dismissed. The judgment was delivered on July 4, 2014.
|
