PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 93 ITR 682 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Order passed in consequence of direction of High court in writ proceedings-Order passed beyond period of twelve months-Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to frame assessment-Revision is bad in law. [S. 92CA, 143(3) 144C, 153(5) 153(6), 260]

Held that that the order was passed in consequence of the direction contained in the order passed by the High Court in writ proceedings, which did not constitute an appeal or reference made under section 260 of the Act. Therefore sub-section (5) of section 153 of the Act was not applicable. That sub-section (6) of section 153 covered an order passed by the Assessing Officer in consequence of any finding or direction contained in an order by any court in a proceeding other than appeal or reference under this Act. In such case, the Assessing Officer was required to pass the order within twelve months from the end of the month in which the order had been received by the Commissioner. The Assessing Officer had issued fresh show-cause notice dated October 6, 2017 in consequence of the directions contained in the order passed by the High Court dated August 11, 2017, it could be inferred that the office of the Commissioner had received the order of High Court on or before the date of notice, i. e., October 6, 2017. Accordingly, the period of twelve months for completion of assessment began from the end of the month of October 2017 which ended on October 31, 2018. However, the order was passed on December 28, 2018 which was well beyond the date on which the proceedings got time barred. There was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Assessing Officer did not have the jurisdiction to frame the assessment after the limitation period had set in and therefore the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on December 28, 2018 was barred by limitation. The Principal Commissioner had interdicted with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated December 28, 2018 under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act, which had been held to be non est in the eyes of law. Therefore, the action of the Principal Commissioner was unsustainable since the assessment order dated December 28, 2018 itself was bad in law. (AY.2012-13)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *