DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-29, DELHI V. ACCIL HOSPITALITY PVT LTD, DELHI

ITA 3863/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a batch of sixteen appeals related to three assessees: M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., M/s. ACCIL Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. ACCIL Steel Processors Pvt. Ltd., against the DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi. The appeals challenged the validity of assessments framed under Section 153A read with sections 254 and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for various assessment years. The primary contention was that the assessments were time-barred, having been completed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 153(3) of the Act. The Tribunal examined the procedural compliance with the remand order issued on 28.02.2019 and found that the subsequent assessments were not completed within the legally required timeframe.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40609 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALJEET KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 143(1); 153A; 260A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3817/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 With ITA No.3813/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 With ITA No.3812/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, Sahkar Circle, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi PAN :AABCB1885C (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA No. 3866/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 With ITA No. 343/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 With ITA No. 344/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 With ITA No. 345/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 DCIT/JCIT Central Circle-29, New Delhi Vs. M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1, Sahkar Circle, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan PAN :AABCB1885C (Appellant) (Respondent) 2 | P a g e With ITA No. 3814/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 With ITA No. 3815/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 With ITA No. 3811/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. ACCIL Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 204, Nirman Tower, 26 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi PAN :AACCT5683R (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA No. 3862/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 With ITA No. 3863/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi Vs. M/s. ACCIL Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 204, Nirman Tower, 26 Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi PAN :AACCT5683R (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA No. 3917/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 With ITA No. 3918/Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 3 | P a g e M/s. ACCIL Steel Processors Pvt. Ltd., SP-67, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi PAN :AAACU5133D (Appellant) (Respondent) With ITA No. 348/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 With ITA No. 987/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 JCIT(OSD), Central Circle-29, New Delhi Vs. M/s. ACCIL Steel Processors Pvt. Ltd., SP-67, Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi PAN :AAACU5133D (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM The instant batch of sixteen appeals/cross appeals, as the case may be, involves three assessees herein, namely, M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., M/s. ACCIL Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Assessee by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA Ms. Kirti, AR Department by Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22.01.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.01.2025 4 | P a g e ACCIL Steel Processors Pvt. Ltd. All other relevant details are hereby tabulated as under: Sl. No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Order Appealed against 1. 3817/Del/2023 for AY: 2012-13 M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur DCIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 26.10.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1057405742(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 2. 3813/Del/2023 for AY: 2014-15 M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur DCIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 16.11.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1057976415(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 3. 3812/Del/2023 for AY: 2015-16 M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur DCIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 16.11.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1057976622(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 4. 3866/Del/2023 for AY: 2012-13 DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 26.10.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1057405742(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 5. 344/Del/2024 for AY: 2014-15 JCIT(OSD), Delhi M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 16.11.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1057976415(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 6. 345/Del/2024 for AY: 2015-16 JCIT(OSD), Delhi M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 16.11.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 5 | P a g e 24/1057976622(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 7. 343/Del/2024 for AY: 2013-14 JCIT(OSD), Delhi M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 24.11.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1058218744(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 8. 3814/Del/2023 for AY: 2012-13 M/s. ACCIL Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 31.10.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1057561154(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act 9. 3815/Del/2023 for AY: 2014-15 M/s. ACCIL Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 31.10.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/105756942(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 10. 3811/Del/2023 for AY: 2015-16 M/s. ACCIL Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 31.10.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1057554977(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 11. 3862/Del/2023 for AY: 2012-13 DCIT, Delhi M/s. ACCIL Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 31.10.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1057561154(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 12 3863/Del/2023 for AY: 2014-15 DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi M/s. ACCIL Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 31.10.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/105756642(1) involving proceedings 6 | P a g e under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 13. 3917/Del/2023 for AY: 2010-11 M/s ACCIL Steel Processors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 03.11.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1057652991(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 14. 3918/Del/2023 for AY: 2014-15 M/s ACCIL Steel Processors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 24.11.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1058220103(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 15. 348/Del/2024 for AY: 2014-15 JCIT (OSD), Delhi, Central Circle-29, Delhi M/s ACCIL Steel Processors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 24.11.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1058220103(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 16. 987/Del/2024 for AY: 2015-16 JCIT (OSD), Delhi, Central Circle-29, Delhi M/s ACCIL Steel Processors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s order dated 13.12.2023 and DIN ITBA/APL/M/250/2023- 24/1058716780(1) involving proceedings under Section 153A r.w.s. 254/143(3) of the Act. 2. Heard all these assessees as well as department at length. Case files perused. 3. Learned counsel representing all these three assessees submits at the outset that all of them plead their identical substantive grounds challenging validity of the corresponding impugned assessments; all framed on 23rd April, 2021, as time 7 | P a g e barred once under section 153(3) of the Act. And that all these three taxpayers had earlier filed their respective appeals before this tribunal which were restored back to the Assessing Officer(s) by a common order dated 28.02.2019. The learned Assessing Officer(s) is thereafter stated to have framed the relevant consequential assessments on 23rd April, 2021 i.e. very well beyond the prescribed period i.e. “at any time before the expiry of 9 months from the end of the financial year for which order under section 250 or section 254 is received by………” 4. Mr. Jain further clarifies that all these assessees had also raised their respective identical substantive grounds in the lower appellate proceedings as well which stand rejected without even specifically rebutting the corresponding factual averments made therein. He takes us to the “lead” appeal ITA No. 3817/Del/2023 by M/s. ACCIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., wherein the lower appellate discussion rejecting the said limitation ground reads as under: “10. Ground no.3: In this ground the appellant has challenged the validity of the order passed by the AO under section 153A read with section 254 of the Act on the ground that the same is not in conformity with the directions of Hon'ble Tribunal and has been passed without application of mind. The appellant in this regard has submitted that the findings of the AO are not in compliance to the directions given by the Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 28.02.2019. In this regard, it is noticed that the Hon'ble ITAT had set-aside the earlier order of the AO on two specific issues ie, verification of trail and source of money submitted before the Hon'ble ITAT and verification of facts with 8 | P a g e respect to the argument that the case under consideration is a non- abated assessment, however, addition has been made without there being any incriminating material found during the course of search. 10.1 On perusal of the assessment order it is noticed that AO has done detailed analysis of the facts and material available on record including the chart submitted by the assessee reflecting trail and source of money received by the appellant company. Further, the merits of the issue involved are analyzed in detail in the subsequent grounds of this appeal. 10.2 As regards the direction of the Hon'ble ITAT with respect to verification of facts on the argument of the assessee that no incriminating material was found during the course of search, it is noticed that the AO in the assessment order has verified the relevant facts. The AO in the assessment order has noted the relevant facts with respect to the filing of return under section 139(1), processing thereof under section 143(1) and pendency of any assessment as on date of search. Further, as regards to the incriminating material the AO has relied upon various statements recorded during the course of search or post search investigations and other material available on record. The merits of the material relied upon by the Ld. AO has been analyzed in detail in the other grounds of this appeal. This ground of appeal raised by the appellant is hereby dismissed.” 5. The assessee’s case in light of all the foregoing facts and as per section 153(3) of the Act is that the impugned assessments are nonest in the eyes of law since not framed within the prescribed period of 9 months from the end of the financial year of the tribunal’s remand order dated 28.02.2019. 6. Learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, vehemently submits that these assessees have not placed on record the exact particulars of the corresponding receipt of the remand order(s) hereinabove by learned Assessing Authority(ies) dealing with the consequential 9 | P a g e assessments, and, therefore, they are indeed well within the limitation. And that it is the assessees’ bounden duty only to actually prove the service of the tribunal’s order to the prescribed authority before triggering the corresponding limitation period; and, till then, the statutory presumption is that the impugned assessment forming subject matter of adjudication in the instant appeals are not hit by section 153(3) of the Act. 7. Learned counsel has referred to the reply received by the assessees dated 27.11.2024 from the tribunal’s registry under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 that the said common remand order dated 12.02.2019 had indeed been dispatched to office of the learned departmental representative along with evidence and acknowledgement, which forms part of the case records. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the instant first and foremost instant legal issue of validity of the impugned assessments on the issue of limitation prescribed under section 153(3) of the Act. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute between the parties that such a consequential assessment ought to be framed with the period of 9 months from the end of the 10 | P a g e financial year in which the order under section 254 is passed, which in the facts of the present case, expired on 31st December, 2019. The impugned assessments in all these cases have admittedly been framed on 23rd April, 2021. It is further clear that the tribunal’s remand directions stood duly dispatched not only to office of the learned departmental representative but also to the authorities concerned, as the case may be. 9. Be that as it may, learned counsel has further invited our attention to hon’ble jurisdictional high court (Full Bench)’s decision in CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 27(Del) holding that limitation in case of the department for the purpose of filing its tax appeal runs from the date of the pronouncement under section 254 by the tribunal as under: “51. The answers to the questions referred to this Court are answered thus: Q: (i) What is the correct interpretation to be placed on the expression \"received by the Assessee or the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner\" in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Act? Does it mean 'received' by any of the named officers including the CIT (Judicial)? Ans: The word „received‟ occurring in Section 260A (2) (a) would mean received by any of the named officers of the Department, including CIT (Judicial). The provision at present names four particular officers i.e. the Principal Commissioner, Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. These are the only designations of the officers who could receive a copy of the order. In the absence of a qualifying prefix „concerned‟, the receipt of a copy of the order of the ITAT by any of those officers in the Department including the CIT (Judicial) will trigger the period of limitation. 11 | P a g e Q: (ii) Does limitation begin to run for the purposes of Section 260A (2) (a) only when a certified copy of the order of the ITAT is received by the 'concerned' CIT within whose jurisdiction the case of the Assessee falls notwithstanding that it may have been received by any other CIT, including the CIT (Judicial) prior thereto? Is it open to the Court to read the word 'concerned' into Section 260 A (2) (a) of the Act as a prefix to any of the officers of the Department named therein? Ans: In Section 260A (2) of the Act, the words CIT, Pr CIT or Chief CIT are not prefixed or qualified by the word 'concerned'. There is no warrant for the Court to read into the provision such a qualifying word. The Court rejects the contention of the Revenue that limitation for the purposes of Section 260A (2) (a) begins to run only when a certified copy of the order of the ITAT is received by the 'concerned' CIT within whose jurisdiction the case of the Assessee falls notwithstanding that it may have been received by any other CIT, including the CIT (Judicial) prior thereto. Q: (iii) In the context of Section 254 (3) of the Act, is there an obligation on the ITAT to send a certified copy of its order to a CIT other than the one whose details are given to it during the pendency of the appeal? Will change in the jurisdiction concerning the case of the Respondent Assessee to another CIT subsequent to the order of the ITAT have the effect of postponing the time, from which limitation would begin to run in terms of Section 260 A (2) (a) of the Act, to when such CIT receives the order of the ITAT? Ans: As far as the obligation of the ITAT under Section 254 (3) of the Act is concerned, the said obligation is satisfied once the ITAT sends a copy of an order passed by it to the Assessee as well as to the Pr CIT or the CIT or even the CIT (Judicial). The ITAT has to be simply go by the details as provided to it in the memo of parties. If there is a change concerning the jurisdiction of the CIT and it is some other CIT who has jurisdiction, it will not have the effect of postponing the commencement of the period of limitation in terms of Section 260A (2) (a) of the Act. The statute is not concerned with the internal arrangements that the Department may make by changing the jurisdiction of its officers. It is for the officer of the Department who first receives a copy of the ITAT‟s order to reach it in time to the officer who has to take a decision regarding the filing of an appeal. Q: (iv) After the decision of this Court in CIT v. Sudhir Choudhrie (2005) 278 ITR 490, do the decisions in CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 330 and CIT v. ITAT (2000) 245 ITR 659 (Del) require to be reconsidered, explained or reconciled? Ans: The decisions in CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. (supra) and CIT v. ITAT (supra) were rendered in the context of Section 256 of the Act (and not Section 260 A (2) (a) of the Act) and also prior to the decision in CIT v. Sudhir Choudhrie (supra). While the former decisions may not require reconsideration, they require to be reconciled with the latter decision in CIT v. Sudhir Choudhrie (supra). The decisions 12 | P a g e in CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. (supra) and CIT v. ITAT (supra) are of no assistance to the Revenue in its interpretation of Section 260 A (2) (a) of the Act. Q: (v) After the change of procedure where orders of the ITAT are pronounced in the open, is it incumbent on the Department through its DR or CIT (Judicial) to apply for a certified copy of the order of the ITAT and should limitation for the purposes of Section 260A (2) (a) be computed from the date on which such certified copy is made ready for delivery by the ITAT? Ans: While there is no requirement for the DR or CIT (Judicial) to apply for a certified copy of the ITAT, in any event under the extant ITAT Rules, a copy of the order is sent to the CIT (Judicial). In the context of Section 260A(2)(a) of the Act, once an order is listed for pronouncement in the ITAT, the DR or the CIT (Judicial) should be taken to be aware of the order. From that point, it is a purely an internal administrative arrangement as to how the DR or CIT (Judicial) obtains and further communicates the order to the officer who has to take a decision on filing the appeal. It is possible that immediately after pronouncement, the AR or the DR or both may apply for a certified copy of the order of the ITAT. In that case, the time taken for the certified copy to be readied for collection by the applicant will be excluded while computing limitation. But here again, if earlier to such date, a copy is received by a party from the ITAT, then such earlier date will be the starting point for limitation. Q: (vi) Whether the receipt of a certified copy of the order of the ITAT by the CIT (Judicial) is sufficient to trigger the commencement of the limitation period under Section 260 A (2) (a) of the Act? Ans: The receipt of a certified copy of the order of the ITAT by CIT (Judicial) would trigger the commencement of the limitation period under Section 260 A (2) (a) of the Act. Q: (vii) In the context of a common order of the ITAT covering several appeals, whether limitation for all the appeals would begin to run when the certified copy is received first by either the CIT (Judicial) or any one of the officers of the Department mentioned in Section 260 A (2) (a) or only when the CIT 'concerned' receives it? Where the same CIT has jurisdiction over more than one Assessee in the batch, will limitation begin to run for all such appeals when such CIT receives the order in either of the Assessee's cases? Ans: Where there, is a common order of the ITAT covering the several appeals, limitation would begin to run when a certified copy is received first by either the CIT (Judicial) or one of the officers of the Department and not only when the CIT „concerned‟ receives it. When the same CIT has jurisdiction for more than one Assessee, the limitation begin to run for all from the earliest of the dates when the DR of CIT (Judicial) or any CIT first receives the order in any of the cases forming part of the batch disposed of by the common order. If there are four separate orders passed, then the limitation begins to 13 | P a g e run when such separate orders are received first by any officer of the Department. Q: (viii) Whether administrative instructions issued by the Department for its own administrative convenience can have the effect of altering the time from which limitation will begin to run for the purposes of Section 260 A (2) (a) of the Act? Ans: Instructions issued by the Department for its administrative convenience cannot alter the time when limitation would begin to run under Section 260A (2) (a) of the Act. To reiterate these administrative instructions are for the administrative convenience of the Department and will not override the statute, in particular, Section 260A (2) (a) of the Act.” 10. Ms. Kaur has vehemently contested the assessees’ reference to the foregoing case-law on the ground that the same dealt with the prescribed limitation under section 260A of the Act for the purpose of filing a tax appeal than that dealing with framing of consequential assessment herein under section 153(3) in the preceding paragraphs. 11. We are of the considered view that once their lordships have made it clear that time clock in section 260A starts ticking from the copy of the tribunal’s order received by the CIT(Judicial) etc. than the officers “concerned”, as the case may be, the legislature has used identical legislative expressions in section 153(3) of the Act as well i.e. “received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or……..”. We thus invoke the very analogy herein as well to 14 | P a g e conclude that once the tribunal had pronounced first round remand order of 28.02.2019 followed by the compliance to the necessary procedural aspects of dispatching a copy thereof to the learned CIT-DR’s office and other authorities (including the Assessing Officer), the time limit started from that point of time onwards, and, therefore, the assessment herein framed on 23rd April, 2021 are very well beyond the prescribed time period u/s 153(3) of the Act. 12. Coupled with this, we indeed reiterate that neither the learned CIT(A) in lower appellate discussion nor any other documents filed at the Revenue’s behest throw any light that the authorities concerned had not received the tribunal’s first round remand order immediately after it was pronounced in open court. We thus place strong reliance on their lordships “Full Bench” decision; as upheld in Revenue’s Special Leave Petition No. 11792/2018 decided on 01.05.2018 to quash all the impugned assessments as time barred in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 13. All other identical pleadings in these instant appeals on merits stand rendered academic. 15 | P a g e 14. To sum up, these assessees’ respective appeals are allowed and department’s corresponding cross-appeals are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th January, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "