9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not the subject matter of revisionary proceedings in the first round. Tribunal came to the conclusion that the period of limitation has to run from the date of assessment as framed under Section 143(3) dated 26.12.2016, that is at the end of the financial year, 31.03.2017. Therefore, it held that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is hopelessly barred by limitation. Tribunal also took note of the decision of ARBUDA MILLS [ 1996 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Act is sought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, which does not form the subject matter of the reassessment. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal of the assessee on the ground of limitation by reckoning the date of assessment dated 26.12.2016 instead of 23.12.2019 despite the fact that the issue involved in the subsequent proceeding was similar to the earlier one? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal was justified in law in not considering the legal aspect of the issue that since the subject matter of the reassessment and assessment were same, doctrine of merger comes into play? We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel for the appellant. It appears that there is a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and we find sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act dated 23.12.2019 the Assessing Officer had erroneously added Rs. 3,36,122/- for brokerage and commission works instead of the correct amount of Rs. 3,63,122/-, which has resulted in under exemption of income of Rs. 27,000/-. This was the reason for once again exercising power under Section 263 of the Act. The assessee submitted the reply to the show-cause notice and raised the question of limitation stating that in terms of sub Section (2) of Section 263 the power could not have been exercised beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein. Further, the assessee contended that pursuant to the order passed by the PCIT on the earlier occasion giving specific direction to the Assessing Officer, he would have very limited power to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
