Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@MA No.09/JP/17
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@MA No.09/JP/17 ( Arising out of ITA No. 880/JP/11 ) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2008-09 cuke The Dy. Commissioner of M/s J.K. Jewellers Vs. Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur International, A-36, Takteshahi Raod, JLN Marg, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAEFJ9839Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shailendra Sharma lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 28/04/2017 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 01/05/2017. vkns'k@ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 880/JP/2011 dated 25.05.2015. In its application, the Revenue has submitted that the Tribunal has set aside the matter to the file of the AO to decide the same in consonance with the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court judgement in case of Anuj kumar Varshney and others. 2. It was submitted by the Revenue that the decision of the Tribunal in setting aside the assessment is not justifiable as any matter cannot be set aside for afresh assessment subject to an uncertain future event and also for indefinite period. The set- aside assessments are required to be completed by
MA No. 09/JP/17 DCIT, Circle-7, vs. M/s J.K.Jewellers International, Jaipur the AO within the time prescribed in Section 153(2A) of the IT Act, 1961 which is one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the ITAT is received by the concerned Commissioner. This limitation cannot be extended by the Hon’ble ITAT itself for indefinite and uncertain period. As no limitation has been prescribed for the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, therefore an assessment cannot be kept in abeyance till such order of the Hon’ble High Court. Since the mistake is apparent from the order of the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur the same may kindly be rectified under section 254(2) of IT Act, 1961 by recalling the appeal order and deciding the same on merits.
Here it would be relevant to refer to the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench, which is the subject matter of present application, which is as under: “3. We are not inclined to grant adjournment and inasmuch as whether the question of law has been accepted, stage of hearing and likelihood of decision has not been explained to us besides the Assessing Officer will take a view in this matter in consonance with the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court’s judgment. It will avoid repeated fixation and uncessary pendency before the ITAT inasmuch as the Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court judgment will be binding on all concerns. In view thereof, we reject the adjournment application. After hearing the Id DR, perusing the material available on the record, we set aside the matter back to the file of assessing Officer to decide the same in consonance with the Hon’ble Rajashthan High Court judgment in the above batch as and when the same is delivered.
The ld DR took us through the relevant provisions of Section 153(2A) of the Act which states as under: “(2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections(1), (1A), (1B) and (2) in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1971 and any subsequent assessment year, an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order u/s 250 or 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting
MA No. 09/JP/17 DCIT, Circle-7, vs. M/s J.K.Jewellers International, Jaipur aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 250 or section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order u/s 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner or chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.” 5. From the perusal of material available on record, it is noted that the issue involved in the assessment proceedings related to unverified purchases amounting to Rs 1,19,58,445. The Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 25.05.2015 has set aside the matter to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh after the judgement of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Anuj Kumar Varshney & Others vs. ITO(Supra) is delivered. From the perusal of records, it is also noted that the provisions of Section 153(2A) of the Act were not brought to the notice of the Coordinate Bench.
We accordingly recall the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 25.05.2015 and direct the Registry to fix the matter for fresh hearing in due course. The Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is disposed off accordingly.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01/05/2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Jaipur Dated:- 01/ 05/2017
MA No. 09/JP/17 DCIT, Circle-7, vs. M/s J.K.Jewellers International, Jaipur
Santosh* आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, circle-7,Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s J.K. Jewellers International, A-36, Takteshahi Raod, JLN Marg, Jaipur vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT–I, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)-I, Jaipur 4. 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 09/JP/2017)
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत