Shri Atul Hiralal Shah, Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 200/AHD/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7920 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’D’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And MsMADHUMITAROY,JUDICIALMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं ./ITANo.200/AHD/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt.Year:2012-2013 AtulHiralalShah, 8,AmrashirishBungalows, NearPrahladnagarGarden, Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN:ALJPS4966M Vs. D.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(2), Ahmedabad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:WrittenSubmission Revenueby:Dr.DarsiSumanRatnam,CIT.DR सुिवाईकीतारीख /DateofHearing:18/03/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख /DateofPronouncement:10/04/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMEDACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheAssesseeagainst theorderofthePrincipalCommissionerofIncomeTax,Ahmedabad(inshort“Ld. PCIT”)arisinginthematterofassessmentorderpassedunders.263ofthe IncomeTaxAct1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttothe AssessmentYear2012-13. ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 2 2.Theassesseehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Ld.PCIT(Central)erredinlawandonfactsinrevisingassessmentorderwhichis neithererroneousnorprejudicialtotheinterestofrevenue. TaxEffect:N.A.beingatechnicalground. 2.Ld.PCIT(Central)erredinlawandonfactsinrevisingorderwhichismergedwithorder ofCIT(A)andaccordinglyrevisionactioniswithoutjurisdictionasperExplanation1(c)to Section263oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961. TaxEffect:N.A.beingatechnicalground. 3.Ld.PCIT(Central)erredinlawandonfactsinrevisingorderignoringfactthatduring assessmentproceedingstheissueofrevisionhasbeenscrutinizebyAOandaccordingly revisionproceedingsisonaccountofdifferenceofopinionwhichisnotpermissibleas thereisnoprejudicetotheinterestofrevenueandaccordinglyrevisionalorderisrequired tobequashed. TaxEffect:N.A.beingatechnicalground. 4.Ld.PCIT(Central)failedtopointoutfailureonpartofAOtomakeproperinquiriesand accordinglyrevisionorderisrequiredtobequashed. TaxEffect:N.A.beingatechnicalground. 5.TheorderpassedbyPCIT(Central)isrequiredtobequashedassameisbadinlawand withoutjurisdiction. TaxEffect:N.A.beingatechnicalground. Yourappellantcravesleavetoadd,amend,alter,edit,delete,modify,orchangeallorany ofthegroundsofappealbeforetheappealisheardanddecided. 3.TheonlyeffectiveissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedPCIT undersection263oftheActerredinrevisingtheassessmentorderpassedunder section143(3)r.w.s.153AoftheAct. 4.Thefactsinbriefarethattheassesseeisanindividualandpartofthe Barter/accommodationentryprovidergroupwhichwassubjecttosearch proceedingsundersection132oftheActdated4 th December2014andconcluded on03 rd February2015asthelastoftheauthorizationofsearchwasexecutedon saiddate.Accordingly,theproceedingsundersection153AoftheActwere ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 3 initiatedinthecaseoftheassesseefortheyearunderconsiderationi.e.A.Y. 2012-13.Finally,theassessmentundersection143(3)r.w.s.153AoftheActwas completedon09 th March2018aftermakingvariousadditionstothereturnincome declaredbytheassesseeofRs.10,26,020/-only. 5.Subsequently,thelearnedPCIT(central)Ahmedabadonexaminingthe assessmentrecordsnoticedthattheassesseeduringtheyearunderconsideration enteredaMOUwithM/sEyelidInfrastructurePvtLtdforthepurchaseofproperty foraconsiderationofRs.3croresoutofwhichanamountofRs.2.5croreswere paidincash.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedingsfailedtoverify/consider thesourceofsuchcashpaymentofRs.2.5croresagainstthepropertydeal. Therefore,thelearnedPCITbyexercisingthepowerconferredundersection263 oftheActsetasidetheassessmentorderbyholdingsameaserroneousinsofar prejudicialtotheinterestsofrevenueforthelimitedissueofcashpaymentofRs. 2.5croresdiscussedabove. 6.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedPCITtheassesseeisinappeal beforeus. 7.Theassesseethroughwrittensubmissionsrunningpages1to12 contendedthattheassessmentorderundersection143(3)r.w.s.153AoftheAct whichwassubjecttorevisionundersection263oftheActisinvalidasthesame waspassedbeyondthetimelimitprovidedundersection153BoftheAct.The assesseebeforeuscontentedthatthetimelimitofcompletingtheassessmentu/s 153BoftheActwasreducedfrom1 st June2016fromtwoyearsto21months only,astheorderwaspassedbytheAOafter01-06-2016.Therefore,thetime limitforcompletionofassessmentis21monthsandnot24monthsfromtheend ofthefinancialyearinwhichthelastoftheauthorizationsforsearchunder section132oftheActhasbeenexecuted.Asthelastoftheauthorizationfor searchundersection132oftheActhasbeenexecuteddated3-2-2015i.e. financialyearendingason31 st March2015,meaningthereby,theperiodof21 ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 4 monthsexpireson31December2016forpassingtheassessmentorderunderthe provisionsofsection153Areadwithsection143(3)oftheAct.Asthereference hasbeenmadefortheexchangeofinformationundertheprovisionsofsection 90/90AoftheActandthereforethemaximumperiodof1yearhastobeexcluded whileframingtheassessmentfromfirstofthereferencemadeforexchangeof information.Asper,theassessee,the1 st referencewasmadebytheAOdated 30-01-2015andmaximumtimetobeexcludedi.e.oneyearexpires29-01-2016 yetthetimewasavailableforframingtheassessmentfor11monthswhichis morethan60daysasprovidedintheprovisotoexplanationundersection153Bof theAct.Therefore,evenaftermakingreferenceforexchangeofinformationwith FT&TR,thetimelimittopassassessmentordersection153Ar.w.s.143(3)ofthe Actexpireson31 st December2016. 8.However,theassesseehasfiledanapplicationundersection245Cofthe Actbeforethesettlementcommissiondated20-12-2016whichwasrejectedunder section245D(1)oftheActvideorderdated02-01-2017.Aspertheprovisionof explanation(v)tosection153BoftheAct,theperiodfrom20-12-2016to02-01- 2017shallbeexcludedfromlimitationandaftertheexclusionofsaidperiodthe timeavailablefortheAOundernormalcircumstancestofinalizeassessmentafter firstapplicationbeforesettlementcommissionwasexpiringon04-03-2017i.e. aftertheextensionof60days.Theassesseemadeasecondapplicationbefore settlementcommissionerdated27-02-2017whichwasrejectedon10-03-2017i.e. secondapplicationrejectedin12days.Therefore,afterexclusion12daystakenin secondapplication,thetimelimittoframeassessmentwasexpiringon17-03- 2017whereastheorderwaspassedason9 th March2018whichisfarbeyondthe timelimitprescribed.Hence,theorderpassedbeyondthespecifiedtimelimitis notavalidorderandoncetheassessmentorderitselfisinvalid,thesamecannot berevisedundersection263oftheAct.Itwasalsocontendedthatorderpassed inthegroupmemberoftheassesseenamelyShriJigneshHiralalShahwasalso heldtimebarredbytheITATinITANo.106/Ahd/2021.Itwasfurthersubmitted thatthirdprovisobelowtheexplanationtosection153BoftheActwasintroduced ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 5 videBillAct2017andatthetimewhenthesecondapplicationundersection245C oftheActwasrejectedbythelearnedsettlementcommissioner,thirdprovisowas noteveninthestatutebookandalsothesameiseffectiveonlyfrom1 st April2017 meaningthereby,theprovisionscontainedunderthirdprovisoareonlyapplicable incaseofsearchproceedingscarriedoutafter1 st April2017.Inthisregard referencewasalsomadetothejudgmentofHon’bleGujaratHighCourtincaseof AnilKumarGopikishanAggarwalvs.ACITinspecialcivilappealno.12825of2018. 9.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRbeforeusfiledapaperbookrunning frompages1to12andcontendedthattheissueonthevalidityoftheassessment undersection153Ar.w.s.143(3)oftheActispendingbeforetheld.CIT-A,so suchshouldnotbetakenintheproceedingsundersection263oftheAct.Theld. DRalsoreferredtheremandreportsubmittedbytheAOduringtheproceeding beforetheCIT(A)inconnectionwithissueoftimebaringandvehemently submittedthattheorderhasbeenframedwithinthestatutorytimelimit. 10.Wehaveheardtheld.DRandperused/consideredthematerialsavailable onrecordincludingthewrittensubmissionfiledbytheassessee.Admittedly,the assesseewassubjecttosearchproceedingsundersection132oftheActdated4 th December2014andaccordinglytheassessmentundersection143(3)readwith section153AoftheActwasmadevideorderdated9 th March2018makinghuge additiontothetotalincomeoftheassessee.Theassesseeagainsttheassessment orderfiledanappealbeforethecommissionerappealbeingfirstappellate authoritychallengingthemeritoftheadditionaswellthevalidityofthe assessmentorderonaccountoflimitationwhichispending.Inthemeantime,the learnedPCITrevisedtheassessmentorderundersection263oftheActby holdingthattheassessingofficerfailedtoconsideranadditiononaccountofcash investmentinpropertyforRs.2.5crores.Againsttheorderundersection263of theAct,theassesseeisappealbeforeusandchallengedthevalidityofthe assessmentbeingtimebarredwhiletheappealfiledbeforethelearnedCIT(A)on thesameisstillpending.Nowthefirstcontroversyarisesbeforeuswhetherthe ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 6 assesseecanraisethelegalcontentionbeforethetribunalagainsttheorder passedundersection263oftheActwhilethesameisraisedbytheassessee beforethefirstappellateauthoritywhichisstillpending.Inthisregard,wenote theissueoftimebarringofassessmentisdirectlylinkedtovalidjurisdictionof framingassessmentandconsequentlythesameislinkedwith legality/sustainabilityoftheassessmentorder.Therefore,thelegalgroundwhich goestotheveryroot/validityoftheanyproceedingcanberaisedbytheassessee atanystageorbeforethehigherauthorityforthefirsttime.Further,thefacts regardingtheissueoflimitationforfinalizingassessmentundersection153Bof theActwasonrecordandassesseeevenhasraisedsuchissuebeforethelearned CIT(A)intheappealfiledagainsttheoriginalassessmentorder.Meanwhile,the assessmentorderwasrevisedbythelearnedPCITforlimitedissuebyexercising thepowerconferredundersection263oftheActandtheassesseeintheappeal filedbeforeusagainsttheorderundersection263oftheActandraisedthesame issuebeforeuswhiletheappealbeforelearnedCIT(A)isstillpending.Itisalso notthecasewheretheissueraisedrequiresproductionofnewmaterialor evidence.Therefore,inourconsideredopinionthepresentassesseecannotbe prohibitedtoraiselegalgroundchallengingthevalidityoftheassessmentorder whichwassubjecttorevisionundersection263oftheActinthegivenfactsand circumstances.Inholdingsowedrawsupportandguidancefromtheorderof KolkataITATincaseofPILCOMvs.ITOreportedin[2001]77ITD218(Calcutta) whereitwasheldasunder:‘ Anadditionalgroundonalegalissuecanbetakenupbyeitherpartyatanystageofthe appellateproceedingprovideditdoesnotrequireproductionofnewmaterialorevidence. Hence,theadditionalgroundwastobeadmitted. 11.WealsodrawsupportandguidancefromthejudgementofHon’ble BombayHighCourtinthecaseofPeterVazvs.CITreportedin128taxmann.com 180whereanassessmentorderundersection153CoftheActwasmadeagainst theassessee.Theappealwasfiledappealbeforetheld.CIT(A)andsucceeded. Subsequently,therevenuefiledappealbeforethetribunalandtheassessee duringproceedingsbeforethetribunalinrevenueappealwithoutfilingcross ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 7 objectionorseparateappealraisedtheissueoflegalityandvalidityofjurisdiction acquiredundersection153CoftheAct.TheTribunalrejectedthecontentionof theassesseeregardingvalidityofjurisdictionassumedundersection153Cofthe Act.Onfurtherappealbytheassessee,theHon’bleBenchofBombayHighCourt afterreferringtovariousjudicialpronouncementheldthatlegalgroundraisedby theassesseeonthefulfilmentofjurisdictionalparametersevenwithoutfilingcross objectionshouldhavebeenallowed.Therelevantfindingofthebenchreadsas under: 38.Inthepresentcase,itisnotasiftheissueofnon-fulfillmentofjurisdictional parametersofSection153CwasraisedbutrejectedbytheCIT(Appeals).Suchanissue wasnotraisedbeforetheCIT(Appeals).HavingregardtotheprovisionsofRule27ofthe AppellatetribunalRules,1963asalsotheprovisionsofsection260A(7)readwithOrder XLIRule22ofCPCasinterpretedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtinS.Nazeer Ahmed(supra)wethinkthattheITATshouldnothaveprecludedtheassesseefrom raisingtheissueintheappealsinstitutedbytheRevenue,evenwithoutthenecessityof filinganycross-objections.Accordingly,theadditionalsubstantialquestionoflawis requiredtobeansweredinfavoroftheAppellants/assesseesandagainsttheRevenue. 11.1Inviewoftheabove,weholdthattheassesseeiswithinhisrights challengingthevalidityoftheassessmentorderpassedundersection153Ar.w.s. 143(3)oftheActintheproceedingscarriedoutundersection263oftheAct. 11.2Nowcomingtoquestionbeforeuswhethertheassessmentorderunder section143(3)r.w.s.153AoftheActdated9 th March2018waspassedwithinthe timelimitspecifiedundertheprovisionofsection153BoftheAct.Theprovisionof section153B(1)oftheActasamendedbyFinanceAct2016providesthatthe assessmentundersection153Aoftheshallbemadewithinaperiodof21month fromtheendofthefinancialyearinwhichthelastoftheauthorizationofthe searchwasexecuted.Inthiscaseasearchwasconductedon4 th December2014 andthelastauthorizationsofsearchwasalsoexecutedon3 rd February2015. Hence,thesearchwasconductedandconcludedinfinancialyearendingon31 st March2015.Atthetimeofhearing,thecontentionwasraisedbythelearnedDR thatthesearchwasconductedbeforetheamendmentbroughtbytheFinanceAct 2016reducingtheassessmentperiodfrom24monthsto21months,thereforein thecaseofpresentassessee,timelimitavailabletotheAOundersection153B(1) ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 8 oftheActwasfor24month.Inthisregard,wenotetheprovisionofsubsection(3) ofsection153BoftheActhasdirectbearingontheissuewhichreadsasunder: (3)Theprovisionsofthissection,astheystoodimmediatelybeforethecommencementofthe FinanceAct,2016,shallapplytoandinrelationtoanyorderofassessmentorreassessment madebeforethe1stdayofJune,2016: 1 [Providedthatwhereanoticeundersection153Aorsection153Chasbeenissuedpriorto the1stdayofJune,2016andtheassessmenthasnotbeencompletedbysuchdatedueto exclusionoftimereferredtointheExplanation,suchassessmentshallbecompletedin accordancewiththeprovisionsofthissectionasitstoodimmediatelybeforeitssubstitutionby theFinanceAct,2016(28of2016).] 11.3Inthecaseonhand,thenoticeundersection153AoftheActwasissued on22 nd July2015andassessmentorderwaspassedon9 th March2018i.e.notice undersection153AoftheActwasissuedbeforethecommencementof amendmentbroughtinbytheFinanceActandherealsoacaseofexclusionof timeasreferredinexplanationwasinvolved.Therefore,inourconsideredthe limitationperiodprovidedundersection153B(1)oftheActbeforetheamendment willbeapplicablei.e.24monthsfromtheendoffinancialyearinwhichlastof authorizationofsearchwasexecutedandaccordinglythelastdatetofinalizethe assessmentorderwasexpiringon31 st March2017withoutexclusionoftimeas providedunderdifferentclausesintheexplanationtosection153BoftheAct. 11.4Movingahead,wenotethatinthecaseoftheassessee,multiplereferences weremadeforexchangeofinformationindifferentcountriesthroughFT&TR. Theprovisionofclause(ix)oftheexplanationtosection153BoftheActreadsas under: Explanation.—Incomputingtheperiodoflimitationunderthissection— ******** (ix)theperiodcommencingfromthedateonwhichareferenceorfirstofthereferences forexchangeofinformationismadebyanauthoritycompetentunderanagreement referredtoinsection90orsection90Aandendingwiththedateonwhichtheinformation requestedislastreceivedbythePrincipalCommissionerorCommissioneroraperiodof oneyear,whicheverisless;or ***** shallbeexcluded: Providedthatwhereimmediatelyaftertheexclusionoftheaforesaidperiod,theperiodof limitationreferredtoinclause(a)orclause(b)ofthissub-sectionavailabletothe AssessingOfficerformakinganorderofassessmentorreassessment,asthecasemaybe, islessthansixtydays,suchremainingperiodshallbeextendedtosixtydaysandthe aforesaidperiodoflimitationshallbedeemedtobeextendedaccordingly: ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 9 11.5Fromtheaboveprovision,itistranspiredthatperiodcommencingfromthe referenceorfirstofthereferencemadetothedateonwhichlastofinformation receivedor12monthwhicheverislessshallbeexcluded.Asperthelistprovided inthecaseofthepresentassessee,thefirstreferenceforexchangeofinformation undersection90or90AoftheActwasmadeon12 th January2015toUAE authoritywhereaslastreferencewasmadeon16 th May2017withcompetent authorityofBermuda.Nowthequestionarisesfromwhichdatetheperiodof exclusionformakingreferenceforexchangeofinformationshallbecomputed.In thisregard,wefindtheprovisionforexclusionoftimeonaccountofreferencefor exchangeinformationthroughFT&TRwasfirstbroughtthroughFinanceAct2011 w.e.f.1 st June2011whereitwasprovidedthattheperiodcommencingfromthe dateofreferencetothedateonwhichlastinformationreceivedshallbeexcluded. Subsequently,thedisputearoseforcalculatingtheperiodwheretherewere multiplereferencesmadeindifferentcountries.Inthisregard,thelegislatorvide FinanceAct2013,amendedthesaidclauseoftheexplanationbyaddingthe phrase“referenceorfirstoftherefences”andclarifiedthattheexclusionperiod shallbecalculatedformthedateonwhichfirstreferencewasmade.Inthisregard thememorandumexplainingtheprovisiontoFinanceAct2013readsasunder: EXCLUSIONOFTIMEINCOMPUTINGTHEPERIODOFLIMITATIONFOR COMPLETIONOFASSESSMENTSANDREASSESSMENTS Theexistingprovisionsofsection153,interalia,providethetimelimitforcompletionof assessmentandreassessmentofincomebytheAssessingOfficer. Explanationtosection153providesthatcertainperiodsspecifiedthereinshallbeexcluded whilecomputingtheperiodoflimitationforthepurposesofthesaidsection. Undertheexistingprovisionsofclause(iii)ofExplanation1tosection153,theperiod commencingfromthedateonwhichtheAssessingOfficerdirectstheassesseetogethis accountsauditedundersub-section(2A)ofsection142andendingwiththelastdateon whichtheassesseeisrequiredtofurnishareportofsuchaudit,isexcludedincomputing theperiodoflimitationforthepurposesofassessmentorreassessment. However,theexistingprovisiondoesnotprovideforexclusionoftimeincasethedirection oftheAssessingOfficerissetasidebythecourt. Itisproposedtoamendclause(iii)ofExplanation1tosection153soastoprovidethat theperiodcommencingfromthedateonwhichtheAssessingOfficerdirectstheassessee togethisaccountsauditedundersub-section(2A)ofsection142andendingwiththelast dateonwhichtheassesseeisrequiredtofurnishareportofsuchauditunderthatsub- section;orwheresuchdirectionischallengedbeforeacourt,endingwiththedateon whichtheordersettingasidesuchdirectionisreceivedbytheCommissioner,shallbe excludedincomputingtheperiodoflimitationforthepurposesofsection153. ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 10 Similarly,theexistingprovisionscontainedinclause(viii)ofExplanationIto section153provideforexclusionoftheperiodcommencingfromthedateon whichareferenceforexchangeofinformationismadebyanauthority competentunderanagreementreferredtoinsection90orsection90Aand endingwiththedateonwhichtheinformationsorequestedisreceivedbythe Commissioneroraperiodofoneyear,whicheverisless,incomputingthe periodoflimitationforthepurposesofsection153. Attimesmorethanonereferenceforexchangeofinformationismadeinone caseandtherepliesfromtheforeignCompetentAuthoritiesarealsoreceivedin parts.Insuchcases,therewillalwaysbeadisputeforcountingtheperiodof exclusioni.e.whetheritshouldbefromthedateoffirstreferenceforexchange ofinformationmadeorfromthedateoflastreference.Similardisputemayalso arisewithregardtothedateonwhichtheinformationsorequestedisreceived. Withaviewtoclarifytheabovesituation,itisproposedtoamendtheaforesaid clause(viii)soastoprovidethattheperiodcommencingfromthedateon whichareferenceorfirstofthereferencesforexchangeofinformationismade byanauthoritycompetentunderanagreementreferredtoinsection90or section90Aandendingwiththedateonwhichtheinformationrequestedislast receivedbytheCommissioneroraperiodofoneyear,whicheverisless,shall beexcludedincomputingtheperiodoflimitationforthepurposesofsection 153. SimilaramendmentsarealsoproposedintheExplanationtosection153Bofthe Income-taxActrelatingtotimelimitforcompletionofsearchassessment. Theseamendmentswilltakeeffectfrom1stJune,2013. 11.6Thus,fromtheabovememorandumexplainingtheprovision,itisclearthat inthecaseoftheassessee,theexclusionperiodonaccountofreferencemade throughFT&TRshallbecomputedfrom12 th January2015andeventaking maximumperiodof12monththeexclusionperiodendson11 th January2016.The firstprovisotoexplanationprovidesthatincasewhereafterexclusionofthe periodasperexplanationthetimeavailablewiththeAOformakingassessmentas perclause(a)or(b)ofthesection153B(1)islessthan60daysthensuchperiod shallbeextendedby60daysanditshouldbedeemedthatexclusionperiodhas beenextended.Inthecaseoftheassesseeevenafterexcluding1yearon accountofreferencemadetoFT&TRtheassessingofficerwashavingmorethan ayeartofinalizetheassessmentwithinthetimelimitprescribedunderclause(a) or(b)ofsection153AoftheActi.e.31 st March2017.Hence,inourconsidered opiniontheAOwillnotgetanybenefitoftimeonaccountofreferencetoFT&TR inthegivenfactsandcircumstances. ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 11 11.7Nowcomingtotheexclusionoftimeonaccountoftheapplicationmadeby theassesseebeforethesettlementcommissionerundersection245CoftheAct. Theclauseof(v)oftheexplanationofsection153BoftheActprovidesthatthe periodbeginningwiththedateonapplicationmadeundersectionandendingwith thedateonwhichorderundersection245D(1)oftheActrejectingtheapplication wasreceivedbythebyPCITorCITsubjectto60daysasprovidedunderfirst provisobelowtotheexplanationshallbeexcluded.Inthecaseoftheassessee thereweretwoapplicationsmadebytheassesseeundersection245CoftheAct andbothcametoberejectedbythesettlementcommissionundersection245D(1) oftheAct.Thelastapplicationwasmadebytheassesseeon27 th February2017 whichcametoberejectedbythesettlementcommissionerason10 th March2017. Assumingthattheorderundersection245D(1)oftheActwasreceivedbythe PCITorCITonsameday,the12daysstartingfrom27 th February2017to10 th March2017shallbeexcluded.Aterexcludingthesaidperiodthetimelimit expiringundernormalcircumstancesaspersubsection(1)ofsection153Bofthe Actislessthan60dayshencethesamewillextendedfor60daysasperfirst provisoandaccordinglythetimelimitexpireson9 th May2017whereasthe assessmenthasbeenframedundersection153Ar.w.s.143(3)oftheActdated9- 3-2018beyondthestatutorytime. 11.8ThelearnedDRbeforeushascontendedthatasperthe3 rd Provisobelow toexplanationtosection153BoftheActprovidesthatifproceedingbefore settlementcommissionerabateundersection245HAoftheActandperiodof exclusionforcomputationoflimitationasprovidedundersection4ofsection 245HAislessthan1yearthensameshallbedeemedtohaveextendedfor1year. Inthecaseoftheassessee,theproceedingbeforethesettlementcommissionhas beenabatedon10 th March2017andtheexclusionperiodislessthanoneyear hencethesameshalldeemedtobeextendedforoneyeari.e.31 st March2018. Accordingly,thelearnedDRcontendedtheassessmentorderdated9 th March 2018iswellwithinthetimelimitprescribedundersection153BoftheAct.Inthis regard,wenotethattheimpugnedprovisoinrelationtoabatementofproceeding ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 12 beforesettlementcommissionwasbroughtundersection153BoftheActvide FinanceAct2017andmadeapplicablew.e.f.1 st April2017whereasinthecaseof thepresentassesseesearchundersection132oftheActandconsequent proceedingundersection153AoftheActwasinitiatedlongbeforetheimpugned provisoinsertedandmadeapplicable.Hence,thesamewillnotbemade applicableinthepresentcasebeforeus.Inholdingso,wedrawsupportand guidancefromthejudgmentofHon’bleDelhiHighCourtincaseofRohitKumar Guptavs.PCITreportedin[2019]109taxmann.com257(Delhi)whereitwas heldasunder: 61.ItmustbenotedherethatbytheFinanceAct2017,witheffectfrom1stApril2017, thefollowingfurtherprovisowasaddedtoSection153B: "ProvidedalsothatwhereaproceedingbeforetheSettlementCommissionabatesunder section245HA,theperiodoflimitationavailableunderthissectiontotheAssessingOfficer formakinganorderofassessmentorreassessment,asthecasemaybe,shall,afterthe exclusionoftheperiodundersub-section(4)ofsection245HA,benotlessthanoneyear; andwheresuchperiodoflimitationislessthanoneyear,itshallbedeemedtohavebeen extendedtooneyear." 62.Correspondinglywitheffectfromthesamedate,Clause(v)toExplanation1toSection 153oftheActgotamendedtodeletethereferencethereintoSection153BoftheAct.Till thischangewasmade,theprovisionthatwasrequiredtobereferredtofordetermining thelimitationforcompletingtheassessmentunderSection153A,wheretherehadbeen anabatementoftheproceedingsbeforetheITSC,wasClause(v)toExplanation1to Section153oftheActandnotSection153BoftheActwhichmadenoreferenceto abatementoftheproceedingsbeforetheITSCbyvirtueofanorderpassedunderSection 245D(4)oftheAct.ThechangebroughtaboutbytheFinanceAct2017doesnotapplyto thecaseonhandwheretheproceedingsunderSection153AoftheActcommencedlong priortothesaidamendment. 11.9Thus,inviewoftheabovedetaileddiscussion,wefindthatthetimelimit formakingassessmentundersection143(3)r.w.s.153AoftheActinthegiven factsandcircumstanceswasexpiringason9 th May2017whereastheassessment orderwasmadeason9 th March2018.Hencethesamewasdonebeyondthe statutorytimelimit.Therefore,theassessmentinthecaseonhandisinvaliddue tolimitation.Itissettledpositionoflawthatanassessmentorderwhichisnot valid/maintainableundertheprovisionsoftheAct,cannotberevisedbythe CIT/PCITundertheprovisionofsection263oftheAct.Therefore,wehereby quashtheorderpassedundersection263oftheActasnotmaintainable. Accordingly,wealsorefrainourselvesfromadjudicatingtheissueraisedinthe ITAno.200/AHD/2021 Asstt.Year2012-13 13 appealagainsttheorderpassedundersection263oftheAct.Hence,thegrounds ofappealraisedbytheassesseeareherebyallowed. 12.Intheresult,theappealoftheassesseeisherebyallowed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton10/04/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (MADHUMITAROY)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated10/04/2024 Manish