ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPPUR V. KRISHNAMOORTHY HARIOBHASKAR, TIRUPPUR

MA 72/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application by the Revenue against an earlier Tribunal order that quashed a notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The notice was initially quashed due to it being issued beyond the normal limitation period. However, the Revenue contended that the limitation period was extended due to the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and the Supreme Court's orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal, referencing a recent Supreme Court decision, found that the notice was validly issued within the extended timeframe and recalled the earlier order, thus allowing the reassessment proceedings to continue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107147 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal, Rajeev Bansal vs. UOI
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961, Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.ANITA
• Assessee Lawyers: T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे\tई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0003ी एबी टी. वक , \u000bाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0003ी मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल, लेखा सद\u0011 क े सम\u001e BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.72/Chny/2024 [In ITA No.1506/Chny/2023] िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Tirupur. vs Shri Krishnamoorthy Haribhaskar 35/11, Poochakkadu, 2nd Street, Mangalam Road, Tirupur-641 604. [PAN: ABKPH-9735-L] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms.R.Anita, Addl.CIT \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, FCA सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 08.11.2024 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is Miscellaneous Application preferred by the Revenue against impugned order of this Tribunal dated 31.05.2024 in ITA No.1506/Chny/2023 for Assessment Year (hereinafter ‘AY') 2013-14. 2. The main contention of the revenue is that assessee being a non-filer was found to have made huge cash deposits in the bank account during relevant AY 2013-14 and the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 on the Act on 27.03.2021, which notice, according to the Revenue was valid, even though six years from the end of the AY 2013- 14 expired on 31.03.2020, since the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation M.A.No.72/Chny/2024 (AY 2013-14) Krishnamurthy Haribhaskar :: 2 :: and Amendment of certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter in short ‘TOLA, 2020’) came into effect from 20.03.2020 and therefore, by virtue of TOLA, the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act for AY 2013-14 was valid and cited the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court suo-motu passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India dated 23.03.2020 read with order dated 10.01.2022 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to extend the limitation period of all statutory petitions / applications/ suits/appeals/ all other proceedings prescribed under the General Law of limitation or under special laws (both central or state law) w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 due to pandemic Covid. Further, it was pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed 90 days limitation period for filing appeal from 01.03.2022, unless actual period of limitation is more than 90 days. Therefore, it was contended by the Ld.DR that by virtue of such an order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the AO’s impugned notice dated 27.03.2021 u/s.148 of the Act being issued well within the extended time allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, legally valid and cited the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Rajeev Bansal in Civil Appeal No.8629 of 2024 dated 03.10.2024, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to reverse the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal vs. UOI reported in 453 ITR 153(All) and ors. The Ld.DR drew our attention to para 6 of the impugned order, wherein this Tribunal has cited the decision M.A.No.72/Chny/2024 (AY 2013-14) Krishnamurthy Haribhaskar :: 3 :: of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal Vs UOI (supra) to quash the impugned 148 notice issued by the AO. Therefore, Ld.DR prayed that the impugned order may be recalled and the appeal be adjudicated on merits. 3. Per contra, the Ld.AR submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras has granted stay in the case of reassessment proceedings being initiated in similar cases which also has been noted by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order at para 6 of its order and therefore, he doesn’t want us to interfere with the impugned order of this Tribunal. 4. Having heard both parties and after perusal of records, we note that the assessee didn’t file any return of income for AY 2013-14, which was reopened by the AO by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021, which has been quashed by this Tribunal by passing the impugned order on the ground that the sixth year from the end of assessment order expired on 31.03.2020 and therefore, held the action of the AO to reopen as barred by limitation by citing also the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Rajeev Bansal (supra), which decision has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). Thus, we take note of the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court settled divergent views M.A.No.72/Chny/2024 (AY 2013-14) Krishnamurthy Haribhaskar :: 4 :: expressed by different Hon’ble High Courts and held that the the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with TOLA extended the limit for issuing re- assessment notices u/s.148, which fell for completion from 20th March, 2020 to 31st March, 2021, till 30th June, 2021. 5. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find substance in the Miscellaneous Application filed by Revenue and hold that there was mistake of law apparent from the impugned order of this Tribunal while adjudicating the legal issue raised by the assessee and therefore, we are inclined to recall the order of this Tribunal dated 31.05.2024 and direct the Registry to fix the appeal in due course. The assessee is at liberty to raise all the grounds in accordance with law. 6. Thus, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 20th November, 2024 Sd/- (मनोज क ुमार अ\u0019वाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे\tई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 20th November, 2024 DS आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\b/Appellant 2. \t थ\b/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0010/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\tितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0019फाईल/GF "