9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation, consequently ground number 1 remains with no locus-standi, hence stands dismissed. Violation of principal of natural justice for passing ex-parte order and without according sufficient opportunity to represent before the conclusion of revisionary proceedings - Following the principle of natural justice, the proceeding were adjourned and re-fixed on 16/02/2021, nonetheless the assessee continued to opt out from making any representation which resulted into ex-parte culmination. Thus, due service of SCN to the appellant, and reasonable opportunity of fair hearing against proposition and prima-facie unbiased approach while dealing with revisionary proceedings apparently stands established and in fortiori, the Ld. AR did not controvert the factual plexus, in the event we disapprove the contention of any such violation, resultantly ground number 2 3 of the appeal also stands dismissed. Eligibility for exemption u/s. 54F - As per CIT AO erred allowing the assessee a claim of exemption u/s. 54F by turning blind eye to the disqualification envisaged in proviso to section 54F(1) of the Act and further picturing the absence of inquiries into source of investment made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t non-satisfaction of necessary twin conditions laid in section 263 of the Act. 3. Tersely stated the facts of the case are; the assessee is an individual deriving income from salaries, house property, capital gains and other sources etc., has for AY 2015-16 e-filed her return of income [for short ITR ] on 26/08/2015 declaring total income of ₹ 20,76,520/- after a claim of chapter VI-A deduction for ₹ 1,60,000/-. The case of the assessee was subjected to scrutiny under CASS by service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, wherein the valuation adopted for computation of capital gain was revised and assessment was culminated u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at ₹ 67,58,100/- upon recomputation of long term capital gain arisen on transfer of land, and after allowing a claim of exemption u/s. 54F thereagainst for ₹ 54,22,646/- for investment into new residential house. The same is not the subject matter of appeal before first appellate authority [for short FAA ] 4. The Ld. CCIT perusing the order of his lower tax authority, contending one as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenues for allowing the assessee a claim of exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded that, the action of Ld. CCIT is bad is law for twofold legal grounds, first on the count of limitation and second on the count of violation of principle of natural justice. Au contraire the learned departmental representative [for short DR ] in support of action of Ld. CCIT, has placed on record a copy of 'The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provision) Act, 2020' [for short Relaxation Act ] a notification dt. 31/12/2020 and adverting to suo-moto order of Hon'ble Supreme Court on limitation (MA-21/2022) submitted that, the revisionary proceedings including the final order u/s. 263 of the Act is well within the extended period of limitation. Further adverting to explanation 2 to section 263(1), the Ld. DR argued that, ostensibly the order of assessment suffers from blatant error in allowing the claim of exemption u/s. 54F in violation of proviso to section 54F(1), and in the event, nothing more is required to demonstrate erroneousness of the order and hence 263 order needs to be sustained. 7. After hearing to the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee or any other person. (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3)....... (Emphasis supplied) 10. First ground first, s/s (2) of section 263 prescribes time limit within which the order u/s. 263 can be revised i.e. two years from the end of financial year in which order sought to be revised was passed. In the present case, the order of assessment which was subjected to revision was passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 21/12/2017, which falls in the financial 2017-2018. Whereas the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act was initiated by SCN dt. 11/01/2021 and completed on 17/02/2021. Prima facie, the time limit of two years therefrom seems to have ended on the last date i.e. 31/03/2020 within which aforestated assessment could be subjected to revision. However due to nation-wide lockdown imposed, the Central Govt. of India through Relaxation Act, 2020' r.w. notification dt. 31/12/2020, has extended the period of limitation upto 31/03/2021 for completion of any proceedings or passing any order or issuance of any notice, intimation, noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase any reason as it is a part of his administrative control. b. In second phase, revisionary authority would evaluate the order passed by tax authorities below for forming an opinion thereon to the effect that, whether such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue or not and if this phase concludes the satisfaction of twin conditions, then it triggers further phases otherwise jurisdiction fails. c. In third stage, the assessee is put to show cause notice pointing out the reasons for the formation of belief that action u/s. 263 is required and reasonable but sufficient opportunity is accorded to the assessee to rebut the belief and jurisdiction by producing evidential material in support. d. In fourth phase, the authority conducts necessary inquiry into material placed before after hearing the assessee, concludes the revisionary proceedings by express order either dropping the proceedings or directing the assessing officer for modification or for de-nova adjudication as the case may be. 13. It pertinent to take note of the fundamental tests propounded to judge the revisionary action in various judicial precedents includi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sumption of revisionary jurisdiction. 16. In this context it is apt to quote that, Hon'ble Bombay High Court while adjudicating the similar issue in the case of CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd reported at 203 ITR 108, referring to the ration laid down by Hon'ble Justice Raghuveer in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs ITO , tumbledown the revisionary action in para 10 thereof which reads as; 10. As observed in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. ITO by Raghuveer J. (as his Lordship then was), the Department cannot be permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they entertain on facts or new versions which they present as to what should be the inference or proper inference either of the facts disclosed or the weight of the circumstances. If this is permitted, litigation would have no end, except when legal ingenuity is exhausted . To do so, is ... to divide one argument into two and to multiply the litigation . (Emphasis supplied) 17. Nota bene, since the Ld. AO in this case had made inquiries with regard to appellant's entitlement for claim of exemption u/s. 54F and after considering the written submission duly supported by release deed, corporation tax ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
