9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invocation of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would have been premature. However, once the aforesaid decision is communicated and made known to the petitioner, such decision would be amenable to revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case, the decision has been communicated. Therefore, no reasons to interfere at the stage. Therefore, leave the issue open to be decided by the 1st respondent on merits. Petitioner shall make all submissions on merit including their defence pertaining to jurisdiction. Since the impugned notice is of the year 2003, the authority/respondent is requested to pass appropriate orders within a period of 3 months from the date of this receipt of this order. Writ Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... borandum Universal Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mad) iii) C.I.T. Vs C.R.K.Swamy (2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad) iv) C.I.T Vs Md.Meeran Shahul Hameed TCA.429 of 2019 4. It was further submitted that the impugned notice dated 2.12.2003 under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was clearly barred by limitation as the original order of assessment was made on 23.04.1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the last date for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 to revise an order of assessment after expiry of 2 years from the end of the financial year in which the orders sought to be devised was passed had expired. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the last date for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... risdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction. Further, the learned counsel submits that the invocation of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was in time. She further submits the power to revise an order prejudicial to interest of revenue is available with the 1st respondent in respect of any proceedings under the Act and therefore the proceeding of the officer dated 31.03.2002 though not communicated earlier was amenable to revision under section 263 of the Act. 8.I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 9.According to the petitioner also the issue squarely covered in their favour on merits. The decision to drop the proceeding has not been com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
