THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DR.ABDUL AZEEZ

PDF · subscribers
ITA/574/2009HC KeralaKLHC01025335200926 November 2009Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the orders issued by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act were barred by limitation. The Tribunal had found, on facts, that the order was despatched on April 5, 2004, which was after the period of limitation that expired on March 31, 2004. The Court affirmed the settled legal position that an order must be despatched on or before the last date provided for completion of assessment. Since the Tribunal's factual finding regarding the despatch date was not disputed and was considered correct, the Tribunal rightly upheld the assessee's claim and cancelled the impugned orders. The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's order.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut, against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The ITAT had cancelled orders issued by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core of the dispute revolved around the limitation period for issuing these orders. The assessee, Dr. A.V. Abdul Azeez, contended that the orders were time-barred. The ITAT found, on facts, that the Commissioner's order was despatched on April 5, 2004, which was after the period of limitation that ended on March 31, 2004. This factual finding led the Tribunal to uphold the assessee's claim.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the orders passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were barred by limitation. The assessee argued that the order was despatched after the expiry of the limitation period, which ended on March 31, 2004. The revenue contended that the order was validly passed within the prescribed time. The Tribunal's finding on facts was that the order was despatched on April 5, 2004, which was beyond the limitation period. The High Court had to decide if this finding on facts by the Tribunal was legally sustainable and if the Commissioner's orders were indeed time-barred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 ITA.No. 574 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.61/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DR.A.V.ABDUL AZEEZ, 33/5755, TAMANNA, CHEVAYUR, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN FOR R SRI.S.P.CHALY THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, ALONG WITH ITA NO. 608 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I. T. A. No. 574 & 608 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised in the departmental appeals is whether the orders issued by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the I.T. Act are barred by limitation. Admittedly the period of limitation ended on 31.3.2004. It is the finding of the Tribunal that the order was despatched on 5.4.2004 which is beyond the period of limitation. It is the settled position that the order at least should be despatched on any date prior to the last date provided for completion of assessment. Since the Tribunal found on facts that the order was not despatched before expiry of the period of limitation, the Tribunal rightly upheld the claim of the assessee and cancelled the impugned orders. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, departmental appeals are dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →