ITO, NON CORPRATE WARD 4(2), COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE V. KRISHNASAMY BHUVANESWARI, COIMBATORE

MA 71/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2013-14, where the Revenue added a sum of Rs.10,00,000 as unexplained cash under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) later found errors in this order and passed a revisional order under Section 263, which was contested by the assessee. The ITAT initially quashed the PCIT's order as time-barred, based on an incorrect date mentioned in the assessment order. Upon realizing the typographical error, the ITAT allowed the Revenue's MA, recalling the case for a fresh hearing to correct the date and reassess the applicability of Section 263.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107933 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S. SRIDHAR; SPEED
• Keywords: Gift; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 263

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’ ᭠यायपीठ,चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ी एबी टी वक᳹, ᭠याियक सद᭭य एवं᮰ी एस. आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद᭭यके समᭃ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER िविवधयािचकासं/ M.A. No. 71/CHNY/2024 (arising in I.T.A. No. 1528/CHNY/2023) िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward -4(2), Coimbatore. v. Krishnasamy Bhuvaneswari, 43/63, Rajamanai Thottam, Kupanur, Mathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 010 [PAN: AHYPB-5938-M] (अपीलाथᱮ/Applicant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮकᳱओरसे /Applicant by : Smt. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT ᮧ᭜यथᱮकᳱओरसे/Respondent by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of hearing : 21.02.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue has requested for rectification in the order of the Tribunal dated 29.05.2024 in ITA No.1528/CHNY/2023, for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue has filed this miscellaneous application stating that there is a mistake apparent on record in the findings given in its order for the assessment year 2013-14 as detailed below:- :-2-: MA. No: 71/Chny/2024 1.The return of income filed by the assessee, admitting a total income of Rs.7,60,150/- for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was taken up for scrutiny through CASS.(Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection System). The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 24.03.2016, by adding a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained cash u/s68 of the Act. Thus, the total income assessed was Rs.17,60,150/-. 2. Subsequently, as the assessment order contained some errors which were prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2,Coimbatore initiated proceedings u/s 263, and passed an order u/s 263 dated28.03.2018 with certain directions to the Assessing Officer. 3. Aggrieved against the order u/s.263, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Honourable ITAT. 4. The Honourable ITAT vide its order in ITA.No.1528/Chny/2023, dated29.05.2024, has allowed the appeal of the assessee observing that the order u/s.263passed is \"Time Barred\". The Honourable ITAT observed as follows: \" We have heard the rival contentions. It is an admitted fact that the order of the assessment order u/s.143(3) was passed on 24.03.2015. As per the provisions of Section 263(2) any revisional order u/s.263(1) shall be passed by the Ld. PCIT within two years from the end of the FY in which the order sought to be revised was passed, the Ld. PCIT ought to have passed the order on or before 31.03.2017. The order under Section263(1) of the Act has been passed by the Ld. PCIT on 28.03.2018, which is almost one year beyond the prescribed time limit provided under the provisions of Section 263(1) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned revisional order passed by the Ld. PCIT is Without any jurisdiction and hence, needs to be quashed. The appeal has been adjudicated based on the legal issue and the revisional order of the Ld. PCIT has been quashed, the question of adjudicating the appeal on the ground of merits does not arise. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed\". The order of the Honourable ITAT contains mistake apparent on record and is not acceptable for the following reasons: 1. The Assessment Order u/s.143(3) was actually passed on 24.03.2016 and not on24.03.2015. It is by a typographical mistake :-3-: MA. No: 71/Chny/2024 that the date of Assessment Order u/s.143(3) has been mentioned as 24.03.2015 instead of 24.03.2016. It is as evident from the following sequence of date of issue of notices/receipt of replies to the notices from the assessee, and the culmination of passing of Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 24.03.2016. 1.1 Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 09.09.2014 was issued on 09.09.2014, and it is duly served on the assessee by Speed Poston 11.09.2014. 1.2. The assessee filed a Power of Attorney dated 08.06.2015 in favour of Shri. S. PRINCE EDWIN, Chartered Accountant. 1.3. A notice under Section 142(1) calling for certain details was issued to the assessee on 26.06.2015. 1.4. The Authorised Representative submitted a letter dated08.01.2016 furnishing certain details. 1.5. Hearing letter dated 13.01.2016 posting the case for a hearing on 20.01.2016 issued to the assessee, and the said letter was duly served by Speed Post on the assessee on 18.01.2016. 1.6Assessee submitted a letter dated 23,03.2016 regarding receipt of gift from her mother-in-law. 1.7. After taking into account the details submitted by the assessee, in conclusion, the AO passed order under Section 143(3) on 24.03.2016. 1.8.In the demand notice u/s 156 accompanying the Assessment Order the date is clearly mentioned as 24.03.20216, and in the Computation Sheet made through Computer System in the ITD module the date is clearly mentioned as 24.03.2016. 1.9.The said assessment order was duly served on the assessee by Speed Post on 30.03.2016. 1.10.As per Section 153(3) of the Act, the assessment u/s 143(3) has to be completed within the time limit of two years from the end of the Assessment Year, i.e., the assessment should have been completed on or before 31.03.2016, and accordingly the assessment order was passed on24.03.2016. 2. The Assessment order contains the discussion of having issued the above notices, and receipt of the replies from the assessee. 3. In view of the above, it is clearly evident that the actual date of passing Assessment Order u/s.143(3) by the Assessing Officer is 24.03.2016 only and not24.03.2015. 4. In view of the above, the order u/s.263 of the Act passed by the Ld.PCIT-2,Coimbatore on 28.03.2018 is well within the time limit of two years from the end of the Financial Year in which the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) was passed on 24.03.2016. :-4-: MA. No: 71/Chny/2024 5. The assessee's submission that the order u/s.263 passed by Ld.Principal CIT is \"Time Barred\" is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. It is also to be noted here that, to give effect to the order u/s.263, the Assessing Officer has passed an order u/s.143(3) read with Section 263 on 17.12.2018, raising a demand of Rs.1,43,33,510/-. On appeal by the assessee against the Assessment Order dated 17.12.2018, the Ld.CIT(A) vide his order in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 24/1054689095(1), dated 28.07.2023 dismissed the assessee's appeal. On furtherappeal by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Honourable ITAT vide its order in ITA No.1191/Chny/2023, dated 22.03.2024 has set-aside the assessment order dated 17.12.2018 as well as order of CIT(A) dated 28.07.2023, and remitted the entire matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration to frame an assessment afresh. 7. Since by a typographical mistake the date of passing order u/s.143(3) is mentioned as 24.03.2015 in the assessment order instead of correct date as24.03.2016, and also since the matter is already settled by order of the Honourable ITAT in ITA No.1191/Chny/2023, dated 22.03.2024, it is humbly requested to recall/cancel/or pass necessary orders which the honourable ITAT deems fit. 8. In the light of the facts submitted above and aggrieved by the order of the ITAT, Miscellaneous Petition is hereby submitted before the Honourable ITAT. 3.Per contra the ld.AR for the assessee fairly accepted that the date mentioned in the order as 24.03.2015 is erroneous. 4. We heard both the parties and perused the orders. We note that the AO has inadvertently mentioned the date of the order as24.03.2015 instead of 24.03.2016. This error is evident from the submissions and proceedings held during the assessment which is subsequent to the date mentioned i.e. 24.03.2015. Further, the ld.PCIT in his order also :-5-: MA. No: 71/Chny/2024 considered the date of order of the AO as 24.03.2015 without considering the actual date ought to have recorded by the AO i.e. 24.03.2016. Therefore, this mistake of date is not as a result of passing of this impugned order of this Tribunal. In fact, we have followed the Ld.PCIT / AO’s order while passing the impugned order and accordingly held that the order passed u/s.263 by the ld.PCIT, as time barred. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to recall the matter and direct the registry to refix the case for fresh hearing. 5. In the result the MA filed by the revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd March, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- (एबी टी वकŎ) (ABY T VARKEY) Ɋाियक सद˟/Judicial Member Sd/- (एस.आर.रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद˟/Accountant Member चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 3rd March, 2025 JPV आदेशकीŮितिलिपअŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुƅ/CIT – Chennai :-6-: MA. No: 71/Chny/2024 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF "