| Question And Answer | |
|---|---|
| Subject: | MA filed after decision of SC in the context of 153C |
| Category: | Income-Tax |
| Querist: | prakash |
| Answered by: | KSA Legal Chambers |
| Tags: | Miscellaneous application, Rectification of mistake, search assessment, Supreme court judgement |
| Date: | August 31, 2023 |
Assessee has challenged validity of the impugned section 153C proceedings for want of a proper satisfaction. Assessing Officer appears to have initiated the impugned section 153C proceedings in light of his satisfaction note prepared on 13.01.2016 that the corresponding seized material in fact “pertains to” the assessee during the course of search with xyz and thus had a “bearing” on its undisclosed income.
ITAT has passed the order in favour of the assessee by relying upon the decision in Income Tax Appeal No.83/2014 CIT vs. M/s. Arpit Land Pvt. Ltd., dated 07.02.2017 has decided the very issue of validity of 153C assessment against the department and in taxpayer‟s favour in the month of July 2022.
After the decision of SC in the case of ITO V Vikram S Bhatia and others Department has filed an MA on the gound that the satisfaction recorded by the AO is correct and decision of ITAT taken ob the basis of HC decision has become void . the delay in filling MA is due to fact that SC has passed the order on 6.04.2023.
whether the MA filed is legally Valid and Is there any remedy to oppose the MA. pl guide
As per section 254(2) , the MA has to be filed within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed . There is no power to condone the delay in filing of MA . The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act , 1963 are not applicable . The application of the Revenue will be dismissed on the ground of limitation .
Refer Raja Malwinder Singh v UOI ( 2005) 278 ITR 568( P&H))( HC) , Rahul Jee & Co (P) Ltd v.ACIT ( 2009) 120 ITD 481 ( Delhi) ( Trib), Paresh Dhanji Chheda v . DCIT (2016) 160 ITD 656 ( Hyd ) (Trib).
The Tribunal has no power to review refer , CIT v. Reliance Communications Ltd ( 2021) 323 CTR 873 / 208 DTR 113/ ( 2022 ) 440 ITR 1/ 284 Taxman 517 (SC).
Whether the ratio of Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of the assessee is also debatable , hence the rectification application is not valid .