9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and handing over relevant incriminating material to the assessing officer having jurisdiction, the petitioner will not come out of rigors of the said proviso which is clear and unambiguous. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the officer who conducted search on aforesaid four companies and the officer who has been given jurisdiction by order dated 27.12.2022 are same. We are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the notices dated 30.12.2022 are barred by limitation and bad in law. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 10.10.2023 and also notices dated 30.12.2022 issued by the Department. Writ Petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16237 of 2023 which was disposed of by order dated 20.07.2023, directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision on the representations of the petitioner dealing with the question of limitation under Section 153C of the Act expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks. In turn, by impugned orders dated 10.10.2023, such representations/objections were rejected. These orders are subject matter of challenge in this batch of Writ Petitions. Contention of the petitioner: 3. Sri S.Ravi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that notices were issued to four entities as under: S. No. Company A.O. Notice U/S.153C Date of Reply 1. M/s. JBM Resorts Private Limited Respondent No.2 09.04.2021 06.05.2021 2. JBM Agros International Private Limited Respondent No.3 27.04.2021 06.05.2021 3. JBM Exports Private Limited Respondent No.3 26.04.2021 06.05.2021 4. M/s. Spinoza Enterprises Private Limited Respondent No.4 26.06.2021 06.05.2021 4. First notice was issued on 09.04.2021. The limitation is to be counted as per Section 153B of the Act. The Department has erred in counting the limitation from 27.12.2022 whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and therefore, the documents could not have been said to be handed over to a competent assessing officer. Post amalgamation, the proper assessment would be of the transferee entity which is the petitioner in the instant case. 7. Learned Revenue counsel further contended that the ceased documents were handed over to the jurisdictional officer only on 27.12.2022, and therefore, the notices dated 30.12.2022 for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are valid and cannot be said to be barred by limitation. In support of this submission, she placed reliance on judgment of the Madras High Court in LKS Gold House (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 161 taxmann.com 604 (Madras). 8. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on rival contentions and perused the record. FINDINGS : 9. Before dealing with the arguments, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant provision which reads as under: "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 e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or requisitioned are handed over under section 153C to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, whichever is later." (Emphasis Supplied) 12. A plain reading of the provision and expression 'whichever is later' shows the legislative intent that out of aforesaid two methods of counting limitation, the later one will prevail. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the argument revolves around the second (ii) mode of counting limitation. As per the petitioner, the starting point is 2021 when notices were issued to the said four companies, whereas the Revenue has taken a diametrically opposite stand by contending that the books of account or documents were handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction only on 27.12.2022. This point deserves serious consideration. 13. The argument of the petitioner, as reflected in the ground-E of writ affidavits, shows that the petitioner assumed that starting point of limitation is founded upon first notice issued under Section 153C on 09.04.2021. The said notice was not issued to the petitioner. The said notice has lost its complete shine because the same was issued against a company which stood amalgamated in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (LM) v. A.G. (1951) 2 All ER 473. LORD SIMONDS call this 'the one and only proper test'. 15. The aforesaid legal journal makes it crystal clear that if language of statute is plain and unambiguous, it has to be given effect to, irrespective of consequences. 16. In this backdrop, the proviso to Section 153B of the Act needs to be examined. A microscopic reading of relevant portion of the said proviso leaves no room for any doubt that the date when books of account or documents or assets seized were handed over to the assessing officer having jurisdiction over such person is the crucial date and if it is later in time, under 'whichever is later' expression, this date will be starting point for counting limitation. Since previous notices which were issued to four transferor companies were void, same vanished in thin air and relevant dates for issuance of said notices are of no relevance. Merely because some time was consumed in centralising and handing over relevant incriminating material to the assessing officer having jurisdiction, the petitioner will not come out of rigors of the said proviso which is clear and unambiguous. 17. The Madras High Court in LKS Gold House (P) Ltd. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
