ALTHI VENKATA NARENDRA RAJU,CHENNAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

SA 49/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Althi Venkata Narendra Raju against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 3,37,49,272 as long-term capital gains for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary legal contention was whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by the limitation period as specified under section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined the applicability of TOLA in extending the limitation period and found that the assessment order was passed beyond the permissible time frame, leading to its setting aside.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717663 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Wipro Limited vs JCIT, CIT vs Bhan Textile P Ltd, S Kasi vs State, Rungta Mines Limited vs State of Jharkhand
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N.V. BALAJI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Transfer pricing; Documents seized; Period of limitation; Capital Gains; Advance ruling; Validity of assessment; Time period of passing order; Application of stay
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(3); 154; 263; 132; 153A; 90; 139

Judgement Text

"ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 1 of 16 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु क ुमार धिरर ,न्याधयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री अमिताभ शुक्ला, लेखा सदस्य क े सिक्ष BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1247/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./SA No.49/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2014-15 Althi Venkata Narendra Raju, No.1/355, Kamarajar Salai, Siruseri, Chennai-600 130. [PAN: ACUPN4840M] Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri N.V.Balaji, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1073780636(1) dated 27.02.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Chennai for the assessment year 2014-15. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 2 of 16 2.0 The appellant has raised altogether eight grounds of appeal contesting the addition on account of long term capital gains of Rs.3,37,49,272/- made by the Ld.AO vide order dated 28.09.2021 which has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 27.02.2025. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that in case ground of appeal No.8, which is a legal ground is adjudicated the rest of the grounds would be academic and may not require specific adjudication. Accordingly, we will consider ground of appeal no.8 first. At the outset, it is imperative to briefly recapitulate the facts of the present case. The present appeal is the Second Round before this Hon’ble Tribunal. It has been submitted that in the first round before this Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No.2840 of 2018, vide order dated 17.05.2019, the assessment order dated 27.12.2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2014-15 was set-aside and entire issue was remitted back to the file of the assessing officer with the following observation:- “….On the strength of the power of attorney executed by the assessee in favour of Shri V.R. Anbuvelrajan and Shri S. Balamurugan, they sold the property for higher consideration. Therefore, it is obvious that as claimed by the assessee, there are two different transactions. One transaction is between the assessee and Shri V.R. Anbuvelrajan & Shri S. Balamurugan. The other transaction is between Shri V.R. Anbuvelrajan & Shri S. Balamurugan with M/s Jacaranda Properties Pvt. Ltd. These two transactions have to be brought for taxation in the respective hands. These Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 3 of 16 facts were not examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the 8 I.T.A. No.2840/Chny/18 issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall also examine whether the land in question is agricultural land or not. 7. With the above observation, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ….” 3.0 Subsequently, the assessing officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 vide order dated 28.09.2021, determining the Appellant’s income at Rs. 3,48,90,182/- after making addition under the head Long Term Capital Gains at Rs. 3,37,49,272/-. Against the order dated 28.09.2021, the Appellant assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 27.02.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant. The appellant is assailing the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) on various grounds including challenging the validity of assessment order being passed after limitation period and correctness of the addition made under the head Long Term Capital Gain for the AY 2014-15. 4.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that the order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the Ld.AO is barred by limitation within the meanings of section 153(3). It has been argued inviting reference to the statutory provisions of section 153(3) as well as judicial precedents covering the subject pronounced by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 4 of 16 case of Wipro Limited 438 ITR 581 , of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S Kasi, Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Rungta Mines Limited etc, that the impugned order is barred by limitation. 5.0 Per contra the Ld DR argued in favour of order of lower authorities . It was submitted that the order of Ld AO is saved by the TOLA guidelines and hence it is not barred by limitation. 6.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records . It is the case of the appellant assessee that since this Tribunal vide order in ITA No.2840 of 2018 had set-aside the assessment order dated 27.12.2016 and the entire issue was remitted back to the file of assessing officer for re-examination, the implication of section 153(3) of the Act would apply to the facts of present case. We have noted that in the present case, this Tribunal had vide its order in ITA No.2840 of 2018 had set-aside the order of the assessing officer and remitted back the entire issue for re-examination in light of materials that the appellant assessee would furnish and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of being heard. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro Limited vs JCIT in 438 ITR 581 on the issue of interpretation of the phrase “fresh Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 5 of 16 assessment” as contemplated in section 153(3) of the Act. It was held that … “……..8(b). Section 153(3), when it uses the term 'fresh assessment', would mean that the entire exercise of assessment is to be done afresh as it is used along with the terminology \"setting aside or cancelling\" which would mean the whole order of assessment being set at naught and not some issues comprised in the assessment order. When the assessment order is set aside on some issues only and confirmed on other, it is not a case of 'setting aside or cancelling the assessment…” The appellant has argued that the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court would squarely apply in the present case and provisions of section 153(3) would apply. The Ld.Counsel further urged that the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Bhan Textile P Ltd in 300 ITR 176 (Del) also supports the submission made by the Appellant that when the entire assessment is set aside, the time limit specified in section 153(3) of the Act would only apply for making fresh assessment. 7.0 The appellant has submitted that the certified copy of the tribunal order in ITA No.2840 of 2018 was received on 23.05.2019. Therefore, the time limit under section 153(3) of the Act in present case was due to expire on 31.03.2021. Though the department did not produce the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal by the PCIT, it is also not the case of the department that the order was received after 31.03.2020. In the course of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 6 of 16 hearing the Learned DR admitted that, in normal course, the limitation period in the appellant’s case was due to expire on 31.03.2021 but had also contended that the time limit was extended to 30.09.2021 in view of notification under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (‘TOLA’). 8.0 The Ld.Counsel submitted that TOLA would not come to the rescue of the Revenue since it had come into force from 31.03.2020. Under section 3 of TOLA, where a time limit is specified for completion of proceeding or passing of any order under the Income Tax Act, falls between 20.03.2020 and 31.12.2020 the said time limit shall notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, stand extended to 31.03.2021. The Ld.Counsel has vehemently argued that even in terms of TOLA guidelines the impugned order was due to be passed on or before 31.03.2021 and as the same was passed on 28.09.2021 it is barred by limitation and hence an order which is void ab initio. In support of its contentions, the Ld.Counsel has placed an extensive paper book and invited reference to various notifications of the Government concerning extension of timelines qua Covid-19 pandemic. 9.0 The Appellant assessee has thus submitted that the essential ingredient for applying TOLA or any notification issued under the said Act is Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 7 of 16 that the due date for completion of the assessment should fall between 20.03.2020 and 30.03.2021. It was argued that, in the present case, the due date itself was only 31.03.2021 and accordingly the TOLA and its notifications do not apply to the case of the appellant and consequently would not come to rescue of Revenue. The appellant has also contended that the issue of suo moto extension by Hon’ ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 10.01.2022, raised by the Revenue would not apply in its case. The appellant has invited attention to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.Kasi Vs State in (2021) 12 SCC1 holding as under: “….19. The limitation for filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings was extended to obviate lawyers/litigants to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals. The order was passed to protect the litigants/lawyers whose petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings would become time barred they being not able to physically come to file such proceedings. The order was for the benefit of the litigants who have to take remedy in law as per the applicable statute for a right. The law of limitation bars the remedy but not the right. When this Court passed the above order for extending the limitation for filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/all other proceedings, the order was for the benefit of those who have to take remedy, whose remedy may be barred by time because they were unable to come physically to file such proceedings. The order dated 23.03.2020 cannot be read to mean that it ever intended to extend the period of filing charge sheet by police as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer could have submitted/filed the charge sheet before the (Incharge) Magistrate. Therefore, even during the lockdown and as has been done in so many cases the charge-sheet could have been filed/submitted before the Magistrate (Incharge) and the Investigating Officer was not precluded from filing/submitting the charge-sheet even within the stipulated period before the Magistrate (Incharge)….” 10.0 It has been argued that the Ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Kasi vs State (supra) in the context section Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 8 of 16 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would apply to the present case as well. The department cannot take the leverage of the suo moto extension orders issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Jharkand High Court in the case of Rungta Mines Limited vs State of Jharkhand in 2023 SCC Online Jhar 1188 in the context of Jharkand Value Added Tax Act also followed the principle laid down in the case of S.Kasi vs State (supra) and held that suo-motu extension orders of Hon'ble Apex Court would not be available to original adjudication proceedings which is to be governed by applicable Statutes including its amendments. 11.0 With regard to the present controversy we have also noted that the government had considering the challenges faced by taxpayers in meeting the statutory and regulatory compliances due to the outbreak of COVID-19, the government introduced the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (the Taxation Act) to give various reliefs to the taxpayers. Subsequently, the government issued Notifications to extend various time limits and the due date for all such cases was extended till 31 March 2021. 12.0 We have heard rivals submissions in the light of material available on records. Before proceeding further we would like to briefly recapitulate Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 9 of 16 the statutory provisions of section 153 of the Act covering the matter, which is reproduced hereunder:- Section - 153, Income-tax Act, 1961 - FA, 2025 2[Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment and recomputation. 3 153. (1) No order of assessment 4 shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of twenty-one months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable: 5[Provided that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2018, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words “twenty-one months”, the words “eighteen months” had been substituted: 6[Provided further that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on- (i) the 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words “twenty-one months”, the words “twelve months” had been substituted; (ii) the 1st day of April, 2020, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words “twenty-one months”, the words “eighteen months” had been substituted:]] 7[Provided also that in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on 8[***] the 1st day of April, 2021, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words “twenty-one months”, the words “nine months” had been substituted:] 9[Provided alsothat in respect of an order of assessment relating to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2022, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words “twenty-one months”, the words “twelve months” had been substituted.] 10[(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a return under sub- section (8A) of section 139 is furnished, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of 11[twelve] months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] 12[(1B) Notwithstanding anything* in sub-section (1), where a return is furnished in consequence of an order under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 119, an order of assessment under section 143 or section 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the financial year in which such return was furnished.] (2) No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served: 13[Provided that where the notice under section 148 is served on or after the 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words “nine months”, the words “twelve months” had been substituted.] Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 10 of 16 (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) 14[, (1A)] and (2), an order of 15fresh assessment 16[or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be,] in pursuance of an order under 17[section 250 or] section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, 16[or an order under section 92CA, as the case may be], may be made at any time before the expiry of nine months from the end of the financial year in which the order under 17[section 250 or] section 254 is received 18 by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the 19[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be] : 13[Provided that where the order under 17[section 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 under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the 19[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be,] on or after the 1st day of April, 2019, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, as if for the words “nine months”, the words “twelve months” had been substituted.] 20[(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (1A), (2) and (3), where an assessment or reassessment is pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said sub-sections shall,- (a) in a case where such search is initiated under section 132 or such requisition is made under section 132A; (b) in the case of an assessee, to whom any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to; (c) in the case of an assessee, to whom any books of account or documents seized or requisitioned pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, be extended by twelve months.] (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in 21[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], where a reference under sub-section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said 21[sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A)], shall be extended by twelve months. (5) Where effect to an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer 22[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] 23wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment 22[or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the 24[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be] : Provided that where it is not possible for the Assessing Officer 22[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] to give effect to such order within the aforesaid period, for Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 11 of 16 reasons beyond his control, the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on receipt of such request in writing from the Assessing Officer 22[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be], if satisfied, may allow an additional period of six months to give effect to the order: 25[Provided further that where an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 requires verification of any issue by way of submission of any document by the assessee or any other person or where an opportunity of being heard is to be provided to the assessee, the order giving effect to the said order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 shall be made within the time specified in sub-section (3).] 26[(5A) Where the Transfer Pricing Officer gives effect to an order or direction under section 263 by an order under section 92CA and forwards such order to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer shall proceed to modify the order of assessment or reassessment or recomputation, in conformity with such order of the Transfer Pricing Officer, within two months from the end of the month in which such order of the Transfer Pricing Officer is received by him.] (6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1) 27[, (1A)] and (2) shall apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of 28[sub-sections (3), (5) and (5A)], be completed- (i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction 29 contained in an order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263, or section 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which such order is received or passed by the 30[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or] Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be; or (ii) where, in the case of a firm, an assessment is made on a partner of the firm in consequence of an assessment made on the firm under section 147, on or before the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the assessment order in the case of the firm is passed. (7) Where effect to any order, finding or direction referred to in sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) is to be given by the Assessing Officer, within the time specified in the said sub-sections, and such order has been received or passed, as the case may be, by the income-tax authority specified therein before the 1st day of June, 2016, the Assessing Officer shall give effect to such order, finding or direction, or assess, reassess or recompute the income of the assessee, on or before the 31st day of March, 2017. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, sub- section (2) of section 153A or sub-section (1) of section 153B31[or section 158BE], the order of assessment or reassessment, relating to any assessment year, which stands revived under sub-section (2) of section 153A31[or sub-section (5) of section 158BA], shall be made within a period of one year from the end of the month of such revival or within the period specified in this section or sub-section (1) of section 153B31[or section 158BE], whichever is later. (9) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016, shall apply to and in relation to any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 12 of 16 32[Provided that where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or section 148 has been issued prior to the 1st day of June, 2016 and the assessment or reassessment has not been completed by such date due to exclusion of time referred to in Explanation 1, such assessment or reassessment shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of this section as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016).] Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation- (i) the time taken in reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be re-heard under the proviso to section 129; or 32a [ (ii) the period commencing on the date on which stay on the assessment proceeding 33was granted by an order or injunction of any court and ending on the date on which certified copy of the order vacating the stay was received by the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; or] (iii) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer intimates the Central Government or the prescribed authority, the contravention of the provisions of clause (21) or clause (22B) or clause (23A) or clause (23B) 34[, under clause (i) of the first proviso]to sub-section (3) of section 143 and ending with the date on which the copy of the order withdrawing the approval or rescinding the notification, as the case may be, under those clauses is received by the Assessing Officer; or (iv) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited 35[or inventory valued] under sub-section (2A) of section 142 and- (a) ending with the last date on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit 35[or inventory valuation] under that sub-section; or (b) where such direction is challenged before a court, ending with the date on which the order setting aside such direction is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; or (v) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer; or (vi) the period (not exceeding sixty days) commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer received the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 158A and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (3) of that section is made by him; or (vii) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Settlement Commission under section 245C and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (1) of section 245D is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section; or (viii) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings 36[or before the Board for Advance Rulings] under sub-section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the order Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 13 of 16 rejecting the application is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (3) of section 245R; or (ix) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings 36[or before the Board for Advance Rulings] under sub-section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the advance ruling pronounced by it is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (7) of section 245R; or (x) the period commencing from the date on which a reference or first of the references for exchange of information is made by an authority competent under an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A and ending with the date on which the information requested is last received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or a period of one year, whichever is less; or (xi) the period commencing from the date on which a reference for declaration of an arrangement to be an impermissible avoidance arrangement is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (1) of section 144BA and ending on the date on which a direction under sub-section (3) or sub- section (6) or an order under sub-section (5) of the said section is received by the 37[Assessing Officer; or (xii) the period (not exceeding one hundred and eighty days) commencing from the date on which a search is initiated under section 132 or a requisition is made under section 132A and ending on the date on which the books of account or other documents, or any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, as the case may be, are handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee,- (a) in whose case such search is initiated under section 132 or such requisition is made under section 132A; or (b) to whom any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized or requisitioned belongs to; or (c) to whom any books of account or documents seized or requisitioned pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to; or] 38[(xiii) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 and ending with the date on which the copy of the order under clause (ii) or clause (iii) of the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB, as the case may be, is received by the Assessing Officer,] shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-sections (1), 39[(1A),] (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly: Provided further that where the period available to the Transfer Pricing Officer is extended to sixty days in accordance with the proviso to sub-section (3A) of section 92CA and the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 14 of 16 period of limitation available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly: Provided also that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 245HA, the period of limitation available under this section to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 245HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year; and for the purposes of determining the period of limitation under sections 149, 40[***] 154, 155 and 158BE and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 244A, this proviso shall also apply accordingly: 41[Provided also that where the assessee exercises the option to withdraw the application under sub-section (1) of section 245M, the period of limitation available under this section to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (5) of the said section, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to have been extended to one year: Provided also that for the purposes of determining the period of limitation under sections 149, 154 and 155, and for the purposes of payment of interest under section 244A, the provisions of the fourth proviso shall apply accordingly:] 42[Provided also that where after exclusion of the period referred to in clause (xii), the period of limitation for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, ends before the end of the month, such period shall be extended to the end of such month.] Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6),- (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment year, then, an assessment of such income for another assessment year shall, for the purposes of section 150 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order; or (b) any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, then, an assessment of such income on such other person shall, for the purposes of section 150 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order, if such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.] 13.0 It is an undisputed fact on record that the order of Ld.Tribunal in ITA No.2840 for fresh assessment was passed on 17.05.2019. Thus the Ld.AO, in view of prescription given in 1st proviso to section 153(3) was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 15 of 16 required to complete the assessment within 12 months from the end of the Financial Year in which the order of the tribunal was passed. In the instant case, the said limitation expired on 31.03.2021. We have noted that the benefit of TOLA extension is not available to the Revenue in the present case. There is no dispute in this case that the assessment order dated 28.09.2021 was not passed by the Ld.AO u/s 254. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Ld.AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 dated 28.09.2021 was barred by limitation. It is intriguing to note that though the hearings were concluded by the Ld.AO on 22.03.2021 he proceeded to pass the assessment order only on 28.09.2021 . The extension of time lines given the challenging situation arising on account of Covid-19 was a remedy provided to the Judicial Authorities to complete their statutory matters which fell during the lock down period. The same however cannot be ground for rescuing matters which were otherwise barred by limitation. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 dated 28.09.2021 is barred by limitation and cannot survive. The same is therefore set aside. Ground of appeal No.8 raised by the assessee is therefore allowed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1247 & SA No.49/Chny/2025 Page 16 of 16 14.0. As the assessee has succeeded before us qua ground of appeal No.8, all other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee from 1 to 7 have become academic in nature and hence not adjudicated. 15.0 The assessee has moved a stay petition vide S.A No.49/Chny/2025. As we have heard and decided the main appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1247/Chny/2025, the SA No.49/2025 has become infructuous and hence dismissed. 16.0 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1247 is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay applications filed by the assessee in S.A No.49/Chny/2025 dismissed. Order pronounced on 13th , Aug-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (मनु क ुमार धिरर) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member Sd/- (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (AMITABH SHUKLA) लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 13th , Aug-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF Printed from counselvise.com "