2024 (2) TMI 1201 - SCH - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - period of limitation - whether the assessment order for AY 2015-16, issued on 31st March, 2023, was barred by the limitation prescribed in Section 153B? - HC held 2023 (11) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT since there is no jurisdictional error in the assessment order dated 31st March, 2023 pertaining to AY 2015-16, on the ground of limitation, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. HELD THAT - During the course of submissions, as brought to our notice that the impugned HC order dated 19.10.2023 was passed without issuing a formal notice to the respondent-Department or calling for a response from the Department although the standing counsel for the Department was present in Court. We dispose of this special leave petition by reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to raise the contentions regarding the jurisdictional error vis-a-vis the limitation period before the appropriate authority despite the impugned order being passed as against the petitioner herein. The reason for saying so is because the High Court had passed the impugned order without having the benefit of the response of the respondent-Department. Since we are permitting the petitioner to raise the point regarding jurisdictional error in the context of limitation period, the appropriate authority before whom such a point is raised may not be influenced by the observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.

Summary

Issues involved: Lack of formal notice to respondent-Department and jurisdictional error regarding limitation period

Upon hearing the counsel, the Court noted that the impugned order was passed without issuing a formal notice to the respondent-Department, despite the standing counsel for the Department being present in Court. The Court disposed of the special leave petition, reserving liberty for the petitioner to raise contentions regarding the jurisdictional error vis-a-vis the limitation period before the appropriate authority. This was due to the High Court passing the order without the benefit of the respondent-Department's response, allowing the Department to make submissions on pertinent points if such contentions are raised. The Court emphasized that the appropriate authority should not be influenced by the High Court's observations in the impugned order when considering the jurisdictional error in the context of the limitation period. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.