9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... set of the limitation period prescribed under Section 153B of IT Act. The Petitioner s assertion, which suggests that the searches spanning through 02nd to 06th March, 2021, as logged in the panchnamas, should be viewed as the execution of last authorization u/s 132 of IT Act, does not align with the factual reality. Search operation was an ongoing process that definitively concluded on 29th April, 2021, when Locker 299 was inspected. This renders the assessment under Section 153A, which culminated on 31st March, 2023, within the time limit prescribed u/s 153B of IT Act. Consequently, the basis for Petitioner s challenge to the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, is untenable. It is indisputable that the limitation period for assessment warrants strict interpretation; however, the facts presented to us confirm conclusively that the search concluded on 29th April, 2021. Therefore, it is implausible to assert that the assessment order of 31st March, 2023 notified under Section 153A of IT Act exceeds the twelve-month limitation period. Since there is no jurisdictional error in the assessment order dated 31st March, 2023 pertaining to AY 2015-16, on the ground of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is discernible from panchnama dated 29th April, 2021. A restraint order was thereafter issued on 29th April, 2021, but was promptly revoked on the same day. 2.3. On 30th April, 2021, the ITO performed searches of Lockers 2070 and 1320. As was the case with Locker 299, no articles were seized and panchnamas were drawn up reflecting the said status. Restraint orders were issued in respect of aforesaid lockers on 30th April, 2021, but were subsequently revoked on the same date. 2.4. As a consequence of search and seizure operation under Section 132 of IT Act, on 22nd November, 2021, the Petitioner received notices from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [ ACIT ] under Section 153A for AY 2015-16 to 2020-21. In response, the Petitioner submitted income tax returns for the stipulated periods between January and February, 2022. 2.5. After evaluation of the returns and other documents submitted, the ACIT notified assessment orders for the AY 2015-16 to AY 2021-22, in March, 2023. ACIT s findings for the AY 2015-16, contained in assessment order dated 31st March, 2023, are summarized below: ASSESSMENT ORDER DESCRIPTION A.Y. 2015-16: Order No.: ITBA/AST/S/153A/2022-23/1051802759(1) d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, 2022 (i.e., the end of the financial year). This delay of one year in passing the re-assessment orders cannot be condoned. On this aspect, reference is made to the judgement of this Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. PPC Business and Products Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 299 CTR 29. On behalf of Respondent 3. Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent, controverts the afore-noted contentions and states that the impugned notice is within limitation, which must be reckoned from the date the last panchnama was drawn i.e., from 29th April, 2021. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4. The Petitioner s jurisdictional challenge to the impugned notice hinges on ascertaining whether the assessment order for AY 2015-16, issued on 31st March, 2023, was barred by the limitation prescribed in Section 153B of the IT Act. To resolve this issue, we will have to analyse the relevant stipulations of Section 153B, which are extracted hereunder for clarity and reference: 153B- Time limit for completion of assessment under Section 153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 153, the Assessing Officer shall make an order of assessment or reassessment, - (a) in respect of each assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Subramanium asserts that inspecting the same lockers on the pretext of concluding the search, without finding/ seizing new articles, cannot give rise to a second panchnama. Therefore, the date of execution of last authorisation would fall in March, 2021, resulting in limitation expiring on 31st March, 2022, in terms of Section 153B of IT Act. 7. The above-noted stand of the Petitioner is factually incongruent. The ITO inspected three distinct lockers belonging to the Petitioner, namely, Lockers 299, 2070, and 1320. Out of the three, only Lockers 2070 and 1320 were searched both in March, 2021 and April, 2021, based on warrant dated 01st March, 2021. During the search executed in April, 2021 in respect of these two lockers, no seizures were made and consequently, a panchnama was drawn reflecting nil recovery. However, the position of Locker 299 varies significantly. This locker was examined on 29th April, 2021, drawing strength from a warrant of authorization issued on 05th April, 2021. This fact is reinforced by the panchnama, restraint order, and revocation order, issued on 29th April, 2021 for Locker 299. For reference, the revocation and restraint orders are reproduced below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Petitioner s assertion, which suggests that the searches spanning through 02nd to 06th March, 2021, as logged in the panchnamas, should be viewed as the execution of last authorization under Section 132 of IT Act, does not align with the factual reality. The search operation was an ongoing process that definitively concluded on 29th April, 2021, when Locker 299 was inspected. This renders the assessment under Section 153A, which culminated on 31st March, 2023, within the time limit prescribed under Section 153B of IT Act. Consequently, the basis for Petitioner s challenge to the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, is untenable. It is indisputable that the limitation period for assessment warrants strict interpretation; however, the facts presented to us confirm conclusively that the search concluded on 29th April, 2021. Therefore, it is implausible to assert that the assessment order of 31st March, 2023 notified under Section 153A of IT Act exceeds the twelve-month limitation period. 9. In view of the above, 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 no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
