STERLING OIL RESOURCES LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 13(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2077/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2849 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P PARDIWALA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .TA NO. 2077/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S. STERLING OIL RESOURCES LTD., 329,SANDESARA HOUSE, JAWAHAR NAGAR, ROAD NO. 13, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI-400 062 / VS. THE DCIT - 13(2)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAKCS 0055J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: SHRI P. PARDIWALA / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.M. DOSS / DATE OF HEARING : 18. 04.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.06.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DI RECTION OF THE DRP-IV MUMBAI DATED 19.12.2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY A S 7 GROUNDS, BOTH ON LIMITATION AND ALSO ON MERITS. AS FAR AS T HE LIMITATION IS CONCERNED, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W. SEC. 144C(13) DATED 2 7.2.2015 IS BAD IN ITA NO. 2077/M/15 2 LAW AND VOID-AB-INITIO BEING BARRED BY TIME AND HE NCE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI P. PARDIWA LA SUBMITS THAT DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.3.2014 AND ASSESSEE FILED OBJECTIONS ON 30.4.2013 BEFORE THE DRP AGAINST THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS TH AT THE DRP PASSED ORDER ON 19.12.2014 AND THIS WAS RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON 23.12.2014. THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASS ED ON 27.2.2015 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. INVITING OUR ATTENTION T O THE PROVISIONS OF SUB.SEC (13) OF SEC. 144(C) OF THE ACT, THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH, IN WHIC H SUCH DIRECTION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM DRP. TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN THIS CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DRP ON 23.12.2014, T HE FINAL ORDER WAS PASSED ON 27.2.2015 AND THEREFORE IT IS TIME BARRED . HE SUBMITS THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING THE FINAL ORDER GOT EXPI RED ON 31.1.2015 AND SINCE THE FINAL ORDER WAS PASSED ON 27.2.2015 T HE SAID ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THEREFORE TH E ORDER IS NULL AND VOID- AB-INITIO. 3.1. COMING TO THE MERITS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.2.2016 IN ITA NO. 1791/MUM/2014. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 2077/M/15 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FROM THE FINAL ASSESSMENT O RDER WE COULD SEE THAT DRP HAD ISSUED DIRECTIONS BY ITS ORDER DATED 1 9.12.2014 AND THIS ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 20.3 .2014. THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (13) OF SEC. 144C MANDATE S THAT UPON RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SEC (5) BY DRP, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL INCONFORMITY WITH THE DIREC TIONS, COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH DIRECTIONS ARE RECEIVED BY HIM. APPARENTLY, I N THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING RECEIVED THE DIRECTIONS ON 23.12.2014, HE SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT WITHIN O NE MONTH FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH HE RECEIVED THE ORDER I.E. BY 31.1.2015. HOWEVER, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 2 7.2.2015 MAKING THE ASSESSMENT BEYOND THE STIPULATED PERIOD. THEREFORE, SINCE THE FINAL ASSESSMENT MADE WAS BARRED BY LIMIT ATION, THE ORDER PASSED IS NULL AND VOID. THUS WE QUASH THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 27.2.2015 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS QUASHED ON LIMITATION, WE ARE N OT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER SINCE IT IS ONLY AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (C.N. PRASAD ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; ( DATED 22 ND JUNE, 2016 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 2077/M/15 4 !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+ ,%%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , /01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI