SHRI BIDHAN ROY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 51, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2481/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 March 2018AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT's revision order was passed beyond the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the Tribunal held the revision order to be invalid and cancelled it.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges an order passed by the CIT under section 263, revising the AO's order. The assessee argued that the CIT's order was barred by limitation as per Section 263(2).

What were the issues?

The key issue was whether the CIT's order under Section 263 was passed within the statutory limitation period prescribed by Section 263(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM]

order

: March 21, 2018 ORDER

Per P.M. Jagtap, AM

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT, Kolkata - 17 dated 01.12.2017 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 revising the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3) on 29.01.2015.

2.

At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. In this regard, he has relied on Sub- section (2) of Section 263 which provides that no order shall be made under Sub-section (1) after expiry of two years for the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. He has contended that even if an exception is provided in Sub-section (3)

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Bidhan Roy of Section 263 for the applicability of Sub-section (2), the case of the assessee is not covered by such exception. He has contended that since the order under section 143(3) was passed by the A.O. on 29.01.2015 i.e. in F.Y. 2014-15, the time limit available to the Ld. CIT to revise the same as per Sub-section (2) of Section 263 was only upto 31.03.2017 i.e. within two years from 31.03.2015 and, therefore, the impugned order passed on 01.12.2017 is clearly barred by limitation. On perusal of the relevant provisions of Section 263 and keeping in view the relevant facts of the case as clearly evident from the record, we find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee. Even the learned DR has not been able to raise any contention or bring any material on record to dispute the same. We, accordingly, hold that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 after the expiry of the two years from the end of the financial year in which the orders sought to be revised was passed is invalid being barred by limitation as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 263 and cancelling the same, we allow this appeal of the assessee.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21st March, 2018.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →