9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been assessed on 30.06.2012. In view of the above deeming the assessment under Section 22(2) of the Act is deemed to have been made on 30.06.2012. Any assessment made after 30.06.2012 could be traced to Section 27 of the Act, which prescribes six years from the date of orders of assessment, viz., 30.06.2012. Thus, any assessment ought to have been made under Section 27 of the Act on or before 30.06.2018. Assuming that this assessment dated 24.10.2013 is traceable to Section 27 of the Act and the present impugned order is also traceable to Section 27 of the Act, the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 ought to be in compliance with the limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Act, which provides that any assessment ought to be made with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... office records, the impugned order 22.04.2022 has been passed by the Respondent, which is barred by limitation as per Section 27 of the Act, which provides for revision of assessment within six years from the date of the original order. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent placed reliance on the impugned order and submitted that notices dated 06.08.2019 and 14.10.2019 were issued to the petitioner calling for objections and only in the absence of non-filing of objections with supportive documents, the impugned order has been passed. 4. The original assessment order dated 24.10.2013 although refers to Section 22(2) of the Act, it appears that the same cannot be traced to Section 22(2) of the Act in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , beyond six years from 30.06.2012. The initiation of assessment itself is thus beyond the period of limitation, the consequential assessment is also barred by limitation. 5. This Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings being barred by limitation, the same is bad for want of jurisdiction and a nullity. In such circumstances, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted inasmuch as question of limitation relates to jurisdiction. An order barred by limitation is a nullity. In this regard, it may be useful to refer to refer to the following judgments: i) Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 215: 20. ....The revisional jurisdiction having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
