9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 636 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - Period of limitation - whether the dispatch to dispatch register within the department would suffice so as to state that the assessment order has gone out of control of the AO for any possible change or modification? - HELD THAT - Unless and until, the assessment order is received by the postal authority (3rd party/agent of the department) for dispatch within the limitation period, the same cannot be said to be dispatch with the limitation period (i.e 31.03.2015 in this case), though the actual service of the order may be beyond that period. As in the instant case, the evidence on record clearly point out that dispatch of the assessment order was not within period of limitation so as to go beyond the control of the AO. For the aforesaid reasoning and judicial pronouncement we hold that the assessment order is barred by limitation.
Issues Involved:
1. Assessment Order Barred by Limitation 2. Validity of Search under Section 132 of the Act 3. Applicability of Section 153A or 153C of the Act 4. Addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Section 69 of the Act 5. Admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal 6. Levy of Interest under Section 234A & 234B of the Act Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Assessment Order Barred by Limitation: The primary contention of the assessee was that the assessment order dated 27.03.2015 was barred by limitation as it was dispatched only on 07.04.2015, beyond the statutory deadline of 31.03.2015. The Tribunal examined various judicial pronouncements and concluded that an order is not considered passed unless it is issued and beyond the control of the authority. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Maharaja Shopping Complex vs. DCIT, which held that an order must be dispatched before the deadline to be valid. Since the assessment order in this case was dispatched after the deadline, it was deemed barred by limitation. 2. Validity of Search under Section 132 of the Act: The assessee argued that the search conducted was illegal and ultra vires the provisions of Section 132(1) of the Act. It was contended that the search was based on suspicion rather than prior information or material, making the subsequent assessment under Section 153A null and void. The Tribunal, however, did not specifically adjudicate on this issue as the assessment order was already held to be barred by limitation. 3. Applicability of Section 153A or 153C of the Act: The assessee contended that the notice under Section 153C should have been issued as the addition was based on seized material found in the premises of M/s. Lakshmi Gold Khazzanaa Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue in detail due to the finding that the assessment order was barred by limitation. 4. Addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Section 69 of the Act: The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under Section 69, arguing that the section was not applicable under the facts and circumstances. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on this issue as the assessment order was already invalidated due to being time-barred. 5. Admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal: The assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, including the invalidity of the search and the applicability of Section 153C. The Tribunal did not address these additional grounds due to the primary finding that the assessment order was barred by limitation. 6. Levy of Interest under Section 234A & 234B of the Act: The assessee contested the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B, arguing that the levy was not discernible and incorrect. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, focusing instead on the limitation of the assessment order. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order dated 27.03.2015 was barred by limitation as it was dispatched only on 07.04.2015, beyond the statutory deadline of 31.03.2015. Consequently, the assessment order was annulled, and the other grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated. The appeal was partly allowed, and the order was pronounced on 06th February 2023.
|
