9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computing the period of limitation. Although, we find, that as per clause (ii) of ―Explanation 1 to Sec. 153 of the Act, the period during which the assessment proceedings are stayed by an order or injunction of any court, the period therein involved is to be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation for framing the assessment, reassessment and re-computation as envisaged in the said statutory provision, however, no such exclusion has been carved out by the legislature in all its wisdom in a case where the assessment proceedings are stayed by an order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, it is in the backdrop of the aforesaid mandate of law that we shall herein deal with the request of the assessee for restraining the A.O from framing the de novo assessment in pursuance to the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263, dated 31.03.2021. Adverting to the claim of the assessee that it has a good case on merits, without expressing any opinion, we prima facie find substantial force in the same, for the reason, that the contention of the assesee is supported by the judgment of India Advantage Fund VII [ 2017 (2) TMI 722 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] wherein it was observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the A.O while framing the impugned order had failed to examine any of the reasons on the basis of which the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS, viz: (a) Higher turnover reported in Service Tax return compared to ITR and assessee has deposited large amount of cash in savings bank account. (b) Receipts u/s 194C and 194J (as per 26AS) are more than the receipts shown in ITR 4/5/6 and assessee has deposited large cash in savings bank account. (c) Large increase in sundry creditors with respect to turnover as compared to preceding year. The Pr. CIT being of the prima facie view that the order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3), dated 30.12.2017 was erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue called upon the assessee to explain as to why the same may not be revised u/s 263 of the Act. In reply, the assessee tried to impress upon the Pr. CIT that no infirmity did emerge from the order that was passed by the A.O u/s 143(3) of the Act. Also, the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 was assailed by the assessee. However, the contentions advanced by the assessee did not find favour with the Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CIT Vs. Godavaridevi Saraf (1978)113 ITR 589 (Bom). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that in its aforesaid order the Hon ble High Court had observed that until a contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court which is binding on a Tribunal in the State of Bombay, it has to proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court, though of another state, is the final law of land. Apart from that, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Pr. CIT had lost sight of the fact that the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s Milestone Army Navy Trust, ITA No. 1826 of 2016 had followed the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of India Advantage Fund-VII (supra) and had upheld the order of the Tribunal. The ld. A.R in order to buttress his claim that the assessee has a good case therein assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act on multiple grounds. It was, thus, in the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the assessee has a good case on merits, therefore, the A.O be restrained from proceeding with the assessment proceeding till the disposal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied can be extended in a case where a request is made by the A.O to the Pr. CIT or CIT, that for reasons beyond his control, it is not possible for him to give effect to such order within the stipulated time period, then, on satisfaction of the Pr. CIT or CIT an additional period of six months to give effect to the order may be allowed. However, as in the case before us the Pr. CIT had directed the A.O to frame a de novo assessment, therefore, the first proviso to sub-section (5) of Sec. 153 and the extension therein contemplated would not be applicable. As such, in the case before us the de novo assessment as directed by the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s 263, dated 31.03.2021, without any choice, has to be framed by the A.O within a period of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 263 was passed by the Pr. CIT. We find, that the legislature in all its wisdom had expressly vide Explanation 1 to Sec. 153 of the Act carved out certain circumstances wherein the period involved is to be excluded for computing the period of limitation, which reads as under (relevant extract) : Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, in computing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on; or (viii) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings under sub-section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the order rejecting the application is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under subsection (3) of section 245R; or (ix) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings under sub-section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the advance ruling pronounced by it is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under subsection (7) of section 245R; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references for exchange of information is made by an authority competent under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A and ending with the date on which the information requested is last received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or a period of one year, whichever is less; or (xi) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
