9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1022X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the reassessment of the escaped assessment in limited jurisdiction has happened on 25.03.2022, the revision would also have the same limited ambit for the purpose of limitation prescribed in Section 263(2) of the Act of 1961, which is of two years only, for the purpose of job work charges, which would encompass the controversy as regards the impugned notice. This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner may have had a case to challenge the original assessment order, but at the same time, has lost the battle in terms of the Law of Limitation as the Hon ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. [ 2023 (6) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT ] in which it has been clearly laid down that if the subject matter of the reassessment is distinct and different, in that case the relevant date for the purpose of determination of the period of limitation for exercising powers u/s 263 would be the date of original assessment order, which makes the revision proceedings to be ex facie illegal on the face of it on count of limitation. Revision proceedings set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 8D of the Income Tax (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008. The petitioner duly submitted its reply, upon which the respondents did not rectify the assessment order, while retaining original position thereof. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a re-assessment notice under Section 147 of the Act of 1961 on the ground that there was a short fall of an amount of Rs. 2,32,330/- in job charges account, during the F.Y. 2012-13 and relevant A.Y 2013-14. Accordingly, the reassessment order was passed on 25.03.2022. 4. The present controversy has arisen because the respondents have issued another notice for the hearing dated 09.01.2024 to the petitioner under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 invoking the revisional jurisdiction relating to the rate of tax on the facts observed in the said notice. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd., reported in (2023) 152 taxman.com 591 (SC) whereby in paragraph No. 2, the question of law has been framed, which has been answered in paragraph No. 3 of the said judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5144/2022) decided on 26.02.2024, and submits that once an order of assessment is re-opened, ordinarily, the previous order of assessment would be set aside, and the whole proceedings would start afresh; but in the present case, since the subject matter of reassessment is distinct and different, the entire proceedings of assessment should not be deemed to have been reopened. 6.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the impugned notice dated 09.01.2024 is ex facie illegal because the issues before the Commissioner at the time of exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 relates to the subject of the original assessment order, and not the reassessment order. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that since the reassessment order is distinct and different, therefore, the period of limitation for exercising the powers under Section 263 of the Act of 1961 by the Commissioner would relate back to the original assessment order. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r any assessment year Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. 148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.--[(1)] Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, *** as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139: Provided that in a case-- (a) where a return has been furnished during the period commencing on the 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on the 30th day of September, 2005 in response to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een reopened. 8. In the rejoinder arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessment order in itself contains the limited ambit of the job work charges. He further demonstrates the ambit upon which the notice was given, which precedes the order of assessment passed on 25.03.2022 (Annexure -5) and reasons recorded in communication dated 10.01.2022, paragraph No. 6 of which deals with the basis of forming reason to believe and details of escapement of income, and categorically, the notice was issued stating the reasons due to which the reassessment authority believed that an income to the tune of Rs. 2,32,330/- has escaped the due assessment, within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act of 1961. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with the judgments cited at Bar. 10. This Court, on a careful perusal of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. (supra) followed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited (supra) finds that the reassessment order in its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
