9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 months from the end of assessment year in which the income was first assessable. Applying the above judgment to the facts of the instant case, the impugned order had got barred by limitation by 11.59.59 on 28.02.2022. The AO has digitally passed the impugned order on 1.03.2022 at 2.00 am, which is beyond the limitation time and hence the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. Whether curable defect u/s 292BB? - An order passed contrary to the provisions of Section 144C of the Act and failure to follow the binding procedure would render the order without jurisdiction and void-ab-initio. Passing of the order beyond the limitation date is a fundamental error and is not a curable defect under Section 292B of the Act. - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member And Shri George George K, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate. For the Revenue : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2 (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against order of CIT(A), dated 28.02.2022, passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 260 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a writ appeal before the Hon'ble High court which allowed assessee to file objection before DRP on 09.12.2021. DRP went through the objections and passed the order on 31.12.2021. The copy the DRP Objections was received in this office on 10th Jan 2022. The time barred date for giving effect to DRP direction was 28.02.2022. 4. In the faceless Scheme of assessment, the AO actually passed the order well before time, but the same order goes through multiple iterations of approval and review. From case history notings, it is clear that draft assessment to be sent to the assessee was done on 26.02.2022. Assessee was given the draft assessment order on 27.02.2022 along with the computation sheet. The final order is issued to the assessee post review unit approval which was done on 28.02.2022. On the same day 28.02.2022, the AO had approved on the system for generation of order and with this his role ends in the faceless scheme of assessment. Since many orders would have been in queue, there is a probably chance that the order issued by the AO was served next date. A bare perusal of section 144C(13) clearly mention that Assessing officer shall in conformity with the direction complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble and is bound to be rejected. 4. The assessee has filed a rejoinder to the AO s report. The rejoinder of the assessee to the AO s report reads as follows: 4 Counter submissions on the AO s Report 4.1 The fact that the impugned order was passed on 1.03.2022, as evidenced by the digital signature affixed on the order, has not been countered by the AO in his report. It clearly establishes that the impugned order is barred by limitation. 4.2 At Para 2 of the AO s report, it is contended that the final approval in the system was given on 28.02.2022. This does not absolve the legal requirement of passing the order before the due date of 28.02.2022, which has not been done in this case thereby rendering the impugned barred by limitation. 4.3 At Para 3 of the AO s report, the AO has accepted that the time barring date for passing the impugned order was 28.02.2022. 4.4 At Para 4 of the AO s report, the AO has outlined the process involved before passing of the final assessment order and has contended that the approval for the assessment order was given on 28.02.2022 and has imputed that the delay may be due to technical reasons. This submission of the Ld AO is wrong, due to the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. JCIT, Chennai (2021) 433 ITR 28, while deciding the issue of validity and issue of limitation of TPO s order has held as under: 30. Now, coming to the question of how 60 day period is to be computed, the critical question would be whether the period of 60 days would be computed including the 31 December or excluding it. Section 153 states that no order of assessment shall be made at any time after the expiry of 21 months from the end of assessment year in which the income was first assessable. The submission of the revenue is to the effect that limitation expires only on 12 am of 1.1.2020. However, this would mean that an order of assessment can be passed at 12 am on 1.1.2020, whereas in my view, such an order would be held to be barred by limitation as proceedings for assessment should be completed before 11.59.59 of 31.12.2019. 6. Applying the above judgment to the facts of the instant case, the impugned order had got barred by limitation by 11.59.59 on 28.02.2022. The AO has digitally passed the impugned order on 1.03.2022 at 2.00 am, which is beyond the limitation time and hence the impugned order is bad in law and is liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO's report, the AO has outlined the process involved before passing of the final assessment order and has contended that the approval for the assessment order was given on 28.02.2022 and has imputed that the delay may be due to technical reasons. This statement of the AO is wrong, due to the following reasons: i) The assessment proceedings get completed by passing of the final assessment order, which is evidenced by signing of the order. The fact of the instant case, as explained above, is that the impugned order was digitally signed on 1.03.2022, which is beyond the limitation date. ii) The signing of the impugned order has nothing to do with any system issue of many orders in queue, as the uploading of the order arises only after signing of the order. Affixing the digital signature on the order has nothing to do with any system issue, as has been imputed. iii) The issue raised involves issue of notice and not service of notice as contended by the AO. An order gets issued only it is signed. Since the impugned order has been signed on 1.03.2022, it could not have been issued on 28.02.2022, as claimed by the AO. iv) The contention of the AO that the approval in the system was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Rules, 2017 and the pari materia Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires orders issued under Chapter III of the rules to be authenticated by a digital signature certificate or through E-signature or by any other mode of signature or verification notified in this behalf. The Form GSTREG 19 which was notified under the Rules for the purposes of passing order for cancellation of registration specifically requires the signature of the officer passing the order 8. Thus, the limitation period for filing the appeal against the Order for Cancellation of Registration dated 14 November 2019 never began because the Order was not signed in accordance with the rules. Alternatively, the limitation period began only from 19 May 2021 which is the date on which the signature of the Respondent No. 4 was put on the order for the purposes of attestation . The Order of Cancellation of Registration dated 14 November 2019 as well as the First Appeal Order dated 4 August 2021 are therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. In the affidavit in reply it is not denied that the order in original dated 14th November 2019 was not digitally signed. In the affidavit in reply it is specifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
