Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order passed by the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issue was the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was initiated based on a notice under section 148. The screenshot of the e-proceeding clearly shows that the notice under section 148 was issued on 01.04.2021, which is bad in law as it was beyond the prescribed date. Consequently, the assessment order and the revisionary proceedings under section 263 are also bad in law.
Key Issues
Whether the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was within the prescribed time limit and if not, whether the consequential assessment order and revisionary proceedings are valid.
Sections Cited
263, 147, 144B, 148, 149(1)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
(नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) Scan Industries Private Limited, Vs Pr.CIT, Sambalpur Q1, Civil Township, Rourkela PAN No. :AEOPS 8527 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri S. K. Poddar, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld PR. CIT, Sambalpur u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15 in DIN & Order No.ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2023- 24/1060101431(1).
It was submitted by ld AR that before the ld Pr. CIT, Sambalpur, in response to show cause notice u/s.263 of the Act, the assessee had categorically submitted that the original assessment order, which was passed u/s.147/144B of the Act dated 30.3.2022 itself was bad in law, insofar as the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act was issued only on 1.4.2021 and not on 31.3.2021, which was the last date for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Ld AR drew our attention to page 20 of written 3. It was submission that the PR. CIT in his order u/s 263 of the Act at the end of para 9 at page 14 of the order has mentioned that notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021 which was well within the time limit prescribed 149(1)(b) of the Act. It was the submission that this finding of Ld Pr.CIT was wrong, insofar as the notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued only on 01.04.2021 which is evidenced by the assessment proceedings order sheet notings which has been extracted above. It was submitted that consequently as the assessment proceedings is itself bad in law, the consequential proceedings u/s 263 are liable to set aside.
In reply ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the Pr. CIT. It was the submission that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and the assessment order has been accepted by the asssessee and should not be tinkered with.
We have considered the rival submissions. The primary requirement for 263 revisionary proceeding is the existence of a valid assessment order. Admittedly, the assessment order, which is the subject matter of the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 is the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 30.03.2022. This assessment order has been initiated on account of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. The said notice u/s 148 in the assessment order in para 3 also specifically mentioned to have been issued on 31.03.2021. However, the screenshot of the notice of e-proceeding which has been extracted above clearly shows that the notice u/s 148 has been issued on 1.04.2021. Admittedly, this notice issued itself would be bad in law and consequential