9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed on 31.03.2022 and the assessee has challenged those assessment orders in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal by treating them as redundant on the ground that ld. Assessing Officer has passed the fresh reassessment order by issuance of a notice under section 148(a) of the Income Tax Act. At first instance, the assessee thought that there was no need to file the appeal, but later on when it consulted with ld. Sr. Counsel, it was advised to file an appeal. In that process, the delay of 14 days had occurred. The assessee has prayed that delay be condoned and appeals be decided on merit. 3. The ld. CIT(DR), on the other hand, contended that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeals by treating it as an academic process and no prejudice has been caused to the assessee, therefore, it has rightly construed that no appeal is to be filed. That decision was taken by the assessee with full deliberation and therefore, delay in filing the appeals be not condoned. 4. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. Sub-section 5 of Section 253 contemplates that the Tribunal may admit an appeal or permit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. There was no deliberate attempt to make the appeals time barred. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to condone a short period of delay, namely 14 days and decide the appeals on merit. In view of the above, the delay is condoned and we proceed to decide the appeals on merit. 8. The assessee has filed application for permission to raise additional grounds of appeal. The assessee has sought to raise two additional grounds of appeal in each year. The application of the assessee reads as under:- 9. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully and since both additional grounds sought to be raised by the assessee are legal grounds, which are jurisdictional also. They do not require discovery of any new fact therefore, we allow this application of the assessee and permit it to raise these additional grounds of appeals in each assessment year. 10. In the original grounds of appeals, the assessee has raised three grounds, out of which Ground No. 3 is a general ground, which does not call for recording of any specific finding. 11. Grounds No. 1 & 2 are interconnected with each other. In these grounds, the assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.06.2021, was again provided to the assessee vide letter dated 25.05.2022 for the subject assessment years. 8 16-11-2023 Subsequently, fresh orders were passed u/s 147 of the Act dated 16-11-2023 for the subject assessment years wherein apart from some other additions, same additions as made in order dated 28-12-2023 were repeated. 9 Different dates During the course of appellate proceedings, the A/R of the assessee duly appeared before the learned CIT(A) and filed written submissions along with documentary evidences. 10 28-12-2023 The learned CIT(A) instead of adjudicating the case on merits for the subject assessment years, dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 28-12-2023 holding the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act dated 31-03-2022 as non-est on the ground that fresh order u/s 143(3)/147 has been passed on 16-11-2023 following new provisions of section 148A of the Act in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal (2022) SCC Online SC 543. The relevant extract of the judgment is quoted below: "Aggrieved against the said assessment, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eantime, an intimation was received from the AO that fresh orders u/s 143(3)/147 have been passed on 16.11.2023 following new provisions of section 148A in view of the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agarwal (2022 SCC Online SC 543). Accordingly, the order appealed against becomes non-est. Therefore, the instant appeal is rendered infructuous and the grounds taken by the Ld. AR remain for academic purposes only. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. RAJIB JAIN CIT (A), Patna- 3". 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugning the above order raised two-folds of contentions. In his first fold of contention, he submitted that the assessee has challenged the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 on 31.03.2022. This assessment order was passed on the basis of a notice of reopening the assessment issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(Appeals) instead of dismissing the appeals ought to have allowed it because ld. CIT(Appeals) was satisfied that notice under section 148 was issued on 30.06.2021 when this section was no more applicable, because w.e.f. 1st April, 2021, a new scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, for this Tribunal, this issue ought not to be decided. 17. We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the ld. CIT(Appeals)'s order (finding extracted supra) would indicate that ld. CIT(Appeals) has basically assumed that since fresh assessment orders have been passed on 16.11.2023 after issuance of a notice under section 148(A), therefore, the earlier assessment orders passed would become non-est. To our mind, the ld. 1st Appellate Authority ought to have recorded a categorical finding on the merits of assessment orders impugned before it i.e. sustainability assessment orders dated 31.03.2022 passed vide notice issued on 30.06.2021 under section 148. But ld. CIT(Appeals) in a deeming manner assumed that subsequent proceeding taken by the ld. Assessing Officer is a legal one, therefore, he can simply observe that these assessment orders are non-est and appeals become infructuous. It is pertinent to note that once reassessment order is passed by the ld. Assessing Officer (in the present appeal, such orders were passed on a notice issued under section 148, i.e. old provisions), then, whether an Assessing Officer himself can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uent decision of the Constitutional Bench in the case of High Court Bar Association -vs.- State of U.P. (2024) 160 taxman.com 32. The finding of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in paragraphs no. 25 to 29 deserves to be noticed by us, which reads as under:- "25. However, we are of the firm opinion that Ashish Agarwal neither intended nor mandated concluded assessments being reopened. The respondent clearly appears to have erred in proceedings along lines contrary to the above as would be evident from the reasons which follow. Firstly, Ashish Agarwal was principally concerned with judgments rendered by various High Courts' striking down Section 148 notices holding that the respondents had erred in proceeding on the basis of the unamended family of provisions relating to reassessment. They had essentially held that it was the procedure constructed in terms of the amendments introduced by Finance Act, 2021 which would apply. None of those judgements were primarily concerned with concluded assessments. It is this indubitable position which constrained the Supreme Court to frame directions requiring those notices to be treated as being under Section 148A(b) and for the AO proceeding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r spoke of completed assessments nor did it embody any direction that could be legitimately or justifiably construed as mandating completed assessments being reopened and moreso where the assessee had raised no objection to the initiation of proceedings. 27. We are also of the firm opinion that even para 25.5 of Ashish Agarwal would not sustain the stand taken by the respondent since the same clearly confines itself to decisions or judgments rendered by a High Court invalidating a notice under Section 148 and the manifest intent of the Supreme Court being that its judgment would apply and govern irrespective of whether an appeal had been laid before it. 28. It is in the aforesaid context that we also bear in mind the pertinent observations rendered by the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association when it held that a direction under Article 142 of the Constitution should not impact the substantive rights of those litigants who are not even parties to the lis. The Constitution Bench while acknowledging the amplitude of the Article 142 power placed a significant caveat when it observed that benefits derived by a litigant based on a judicial order validly passed cannot be an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
