The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad V. M/s. SSA Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

MA 105/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7998 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIASHOKKUMARSUTHAR; FORASSESSEENAMELYSHRIGOPALDAYABHAIPATELCONO.AHDSHALLALSOBEAPPLIED; FORTHEASSESSEESUBMITTEDTHATTHEAO; WAYOFTHESEMISCELLANEOUSAPPLICATIONSISSEEKINGTORECALL

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And SHRITRSENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER MANos.105-106/AHD/2023 in आयकरअपीलसं./IT(SS)ANos.153-154/AHD/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt.Year:2012-2013&2013-2014 D.C.I.T, CentralCircle-1(1), Ahmedabad. Vs. M/sSSAHirePurchasePvt.Ltd., 21,SuvidhaNagar, BhuravCharRasta, Godhra-389001 Gujarat PAN:AAMCS8305F (Applicant)(Respondent) Revenueby:ShriAshokKumarSuthar,Sr.DR Assesseeby:ShriTusharHemani,Sr.Advocatewith ShriParimalsinhBParmar सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:12/01/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:05/04/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: Therevenuebywayofthesemiscellaneousapplicationsisseekingtorecall theorderpassedbytheITATonthereasoningthatthereisamistakeapparent fromtherecordwithinthemeaningoftheprovisionsofsection254(2)oftheAct. MANos.105-106/Ahd/2023in IT(SS)Anos.15-154/AHD/2021 A.Y.s2012-13&2013-14 2 2.First,wetakeuptheMANo.105/Ahd/2023inITANo.153/Ahd/2021 forAY2012-13.Therelevantextractofthemiscellaneousapplicationfiledbythe Revenueisreproducedasunder: 3.1.DecisionoftheHon'bleITAT: TheITAT'C'Bench,Ahmedabadvidecommonorderdated19.05.2023consistingcasesof ShriGopalDPatel&M/sSSAHirePurchasePvt.Ltd.,dismissedtheappealoftheRevenueand allowedtheC.O.filedbytheassessee.TheITATrelieduponitsowndecisionincaseofkeyperson oftheassesseegroupnamelyShriAshokSundardasVaswaniin1T(SS)No.88/Ahd/2019&others videorderdated12.11.2020. 3.2TheITATwhiledecidingthecaseofShriGopalDPatel,IT(SS)152/Ahd/2021&CO No.02/AHD/2022intheaforementionedcommonorderdated19.05.2023statedthat"followingthe orderofthetribunalinthegroupcaseoftheassessee,weholdthatthesearchwasconcludedason 10thmarch2015andaccordingly,thetimelimittocompletetheassessmentu/s.143(3)r.w.s.153A oftheActexpireason31March2017.Hence,theorderpassedon28thDecember2017isinvalid duetolimitationoftimeandweherebyquashthesame.Since,wehavedecidedthetechnical groundandquashedtheassessmentbeinginvalidduetolimitationoftimeasdiscussedabove,we arenotinclinedtodecidetheissuesonothertechnicalgroundraisedbytheassesseeinthe captionedCoaswellastheissuesraisedbytheRevenueonmeritinTI(SS))No.152/Ahd/2021. Accordingly,wedismissthegroundsofotherobjectionraisedbytheassesseeandtheissuesraised bytheRevenueonmeritasin-fructuous." 3.3ItisfurtherstatedbytheITATthat"thelearnedARandtheDRalsoagreedthatwhateverwill befindingsforassesseenamelyShriGopalDayabhaiPatelCONo.02/Ahd/2022shallalsobeapplied forthecurrentassesseei.e.M/s.SSAHirePurchasePvt.Ltdandaccordinglythegroundsof objectionfiledbytheassesseeincaptionedcrossobjectionsareherebypartlyallowedandsincewe havedecidedthetechnicalgroundandquashedtheassessmentbeinginvalidduetolimitationof timeasdiscussedabove,wearenotinclinedtodecidetheissueraisedbytheRevenueinIT(SS)No. 153&154/Ahd/2021fortheAY2012-13&2013-14." 4.ThedecisionoftheHon'bleITATisnotacceptableinthelightoffollowingdiscussion: 4.1SincethelearnedARandtheDRagreedthatwhateverwillbefindingsforShriGopalDayabhai PatelCONo.02/Ahd/2022inIT(SS)No.152/Ahd/2021,shallalsobeappliedforthecurrentassessee i.e.M/s.SSAHirePurchasePvt.Ltd,thereforeitisessentialtodiscussedthefactsofthecase namelyShriGopalDayabhaiPatel,CONo.02/Ahd/2022IT(SS)No.152/Ahd/2021inrespectoftime barringdateofcompletionofassessments. 4.2Inthisregard,section153Bisproducedhereunder:- 153B.(1)Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinsection153,theAssessingOfficershall makeanorderofassessmentorreassessment,- (a)inrespectofeachassessmentyearfallingwithinsixassessmentyearsandforthe relevantassessmentyearoryearsreferredtoinclause(b)ofsub-section(1)ofsection153A.within aperiodoftwenty-onemonthsfromtheendofthefinancialyearinwhichthelastofthe authorizationsforsearchundersection132orforrequisitionundersection132Awasexecuted; (b)inrespectoftheassessmentyearrelevanttothepreviousyearinwhichsearchis conductedundersection132orrequisitionismadeundersection132A,withinaperiodoftwenty- onemonthsfromtheendofthefinancialyearinwhichthelastoftheauthorisationsforsearch undersection132orforrequisitionundersection132Awasexecuted: (2)Theauthorizationreferredtoinclause(a)andclause(b)ofsub-section(1)shallbe deemedtohavebeenexecuted,- MANos.105-106/Ahd/2023in IT(SS)Anos.15-154/AHD/2021 A.Y.s2012-13&2013-14 3 (a)inthecaseofsearch,ontheconclusionofsearchasrecordedinthelastpanchnama drawninrelationtoanypersoninwhosecasethewarrantofauthorisationhasbeenissued,or (b)inthecaseofrequisitionundersection132A,ontheactualreceiptofthebooksof accountorotherdocumentsorassetsbytheAuthorisedOfficer. 4.3Onperusaloftheabove,itisclearthatanassessmentorderhastobepassedwithin twoyearsfromtheendoftheFinancialYearinwhichthelastoftheauthorizationundersection132 oftheActwasexecutedorrequisitionundersection132Aisexecuted.Theexplanationofexpression lastoftheauthorizationprovidedinsubSection(2)isidenticalinExplanation(2)ofSection158BE whichreadasunder: Explanation2-Fortheremovalofdoubts,itisherebydeclaredthattheauthorisation referredtoinsub-section(1)shallbedeemedtohavebeenexecuted,- (a)inthecaseofsearch,ontheconclusionofsearchasrecordedinthelastpanchnama drawninrelationtoanypersoninwhosecasethewarrantofauthorisationhasbeenissued, (b)inthecaseofrequisitionundersection132A,ontheactualreceiptofthebooksof accountorotherdocumentsorassetsbytheAuthorisedOfficer. 4.4InthecaseofShriGopalDayabhaiPatel,itisnoticedthatthepanchnamaatthebank lockersatIndianBank,C.G.RoadBranchwasdrawnon07.04.2015asfarastimeperiodforpassing theassessmentprovidedinsub-Section(1)ofSection153Bisconcerned.ThisSectioncontemplates thatassessmentorderwouldbepassedwithintwoyearsfromtheendofthefinancialyearinwhich thelastoftheauthorizationforsearchunders.132oftheActorrequisitionunders.132(4)oftheAct wasexecuted.Hence,inthecaseofShriGopalDayabhaiPatel,asthelastpanchnama/last authorizationofsearchwasdoneon07.04.2015,sotheAOhadatimeperiodoftwoyearfrom 31.03.2016i.e.upto31.03.2018.Theassessmentorderhasbeenpassedintimeon28.12.2017and hencetheirremainsnolegalinfirmityinrespectofthetimelimitforcompletionoftheassessment. 4.5Further,sincethecaseofShriGopalDayabhaiPatelhasbeendecidedbytheITAT relyinguponitsownorderincaseofkeypersonoftheassesseegroupnamelyShriAshokSundardas VaswanibeingIT(SS)No.88/Ahd/2019,thereforeitisalsoimportanttodiscussedthefactsofthis case. 4.6DecisionofITATinAshokSundardasVaswaniinIT(SS)No.88/Ahd/2019:-(a)Tribunal heldthattheofficeroughttohaverecordedhissatisfactionastowhyhewantstoputthe prohibitoryorders.Thus,onthegroundthatsincenosuchreasonhasbeenrecordedbytheA.O. whileplacingP.O.w/s132(3),theTribunalheldthatthedateofconclusionofsearchisbeforeMarch 2015andnot8thMay2015ascontendedbytheDepartment.Hence,thetimebarringdatefor completionofassessmentswouldbe2yearsfromtheendoffinancialyearfromthedateoflast authorization(conclusion). b)Tribunalheldthatoncetheprohibitoryordersinthecaseonhandhasbeenheldas invalid,thenthesearchconcludedinthemonthofMarch2015shallbetakenasthebasefor calculatingtheperiodofpassingtheassessmentorderasprovidedunderSection153BoftheAct.In otherwordsthetimelimitinthecaseonhandexpiresforpassingtheorderason31March2017. Therefore,inthepresentcasetheordershavebeenframedbeyondthetimeprescribedunderthe provisionsoflaw c)SinceassessmentshavebeenframedinthemonthofDecember2017,these assessmentswereheldtobetimebarredandaccordinglyquashedsinceaspertheinterpretationof theTribunal,theyhavebeenframedbeyondthetimeaspermittedbythestatute. 5.ThedecisionofHon'bleITATisnotacceptableasitisnoticedthatHon'bleITAThas passedacombinedorderincaseofShriGopalDahyabhaiPatelforA.Y.2011-12andassessee'scase forAYs2012-13&2013-14.TheHon'bletribunaltookthecaseofShriGopalDPatelastheleadcase andadjudicatedtheissuesofthesameandappliedthedecisionpronouncedinthecaseofShri GopalDpaieltothecaseoftheassessee,i.e.SSAHirePurchasePvt.Ltd.ForAYs2012-13&2013- 14holdingtheidenticaltothecaseoftheassessee.ItisnoticedthatthecaseofShriGopalD.Patel MANos.105-106/Ahd/2023in IT(SS)Anos.15-154/AHD/2021 A.Y.s2012-13&2013-14 4 wascoveredu/s153AwhereinProhibitoryOrder(PO)placedatbanklockerwasrevokedon 07.04.2015.TheHon'bleITAThasconsideredthedateof10.03.2015insteadof07.04.2015takenby theAOandheldtheassessmentorderhastimebarredbylimitationwithinthemeaningofsection 153BAsagainstthefactsinthecaseofShriGopalDpatelwhereassessmentproceedingswere initiatedu/s153A,theproceedingsinthecaseofassesseecompanywerecoveredu/s153Cofthe Actandassuch,nolockerwassearchedintheassessee'scase.Therefore,thefactsinthetwocases wereentirelydifferent. InthiscaseAssessingofficerrecordedthesatisfactionnoteon14.07.2016andnoticeu/s153Cof theActwasissuedon14.07.2016.Timebarringdateofcompletionofassessmentsinthiscase shouldbe31.12.2017i.e.9monthfromendoftheFinancialyearinwhichsatisfactionnotewas drawn.Inthisregard,relevantpartofsection1538isproducedhereunder- [Timelimitforcompletionofassessmentundersection153A- 2153B.(1)Notwithstandinganythingcontainedinsection153,theAssessingOfficershallmakean orderofassessmentorreassessment,- (a)inrespectofeachassessmentyearfallingwithinsixassessmentyears(andfortherelevant assessmentyearoryears)referredtoinclause(b)ofsub-section(1)ofsection153A,withina periodoftwenty-onemonthsfromtheendofthefinancialyearinwhichthelastofthe authorisationsforsearchundersection132orforrequisitionundersection132Awasexecuted; (b)inrespectoftheassessmentyearrelevanttothepreviousyearinwhichsearchisconducted undersection132orrequisitionismadeundersection132A,withinaperiodoftwenty-onemonths fromtheendofthefinancialyearinwhichthelastoftheauthorisationsforsearchundersection132 orforrequisitionundersection132Awasexecuted: Providedthatincaseofotherpersonreferredtoinsection153C,theperiodoflimitationformaking theassessmentorreassessmentshallbetheperiodasreferredtoinclause(a)orclause(b)ofthis sub-sectionorninemonthsfromtheendofthefinancialyearinwhichbooksofaccountor documentsorassetsseizedorrequisitionedarehandedoverundersection153CtotheAssessing Officerhavingjurisdictionoversuchotherperson,whicheverislater. Hence,theassessmentproceedingswhichhadbeencompletedon28.12.2017arewithintimelimit. 5.1TheHon,bleITATneitherdiscussednorquestionedthefactsanddecidedtheappealontechnical groundandquashedtheassessmentbeinginvalidduetolimitationoftime.TheHon,bleITATnot appreciatedthefactthatthereisnosuchstipulationthatanyadditionduringtheassessmentu/s. 153Chastobeconfinedtotheincriminatingmaterialfoundduringthecourseofsearchu/s.132(1) oftheActandadditiononaccountofunexplainedcashcreditu/s.68ofRs.19,02,00,000/-isbeyond thescopeofsection153CoftheAct 6.Consideringtheabovefactsofthecase,thereismistakeinHon'bleITAT'sorderapparentfrom recordasassessmentproceedingsarecompletedasperthetimelimits. 3.Inviewoftheabove,theLd.DRappearingonbehalfoftherevenue submittedtheimpugnedordershouldberecalledasthereisamistakeapparent fromtherecord. 4.Ontheotherhand,theLd.CounselfortheassesseesubmittedthattheAO inthepresentcasewascommonofthesearchpersonaswellofthepersonother thanthesearchandthereforethetimelimitasmadeapplicableinthecaseof MANos.105-106/Ahd/2023in IT(SS)Anos.15-154/AHD/2021 A.Y.s2012-13&2013-14 5 searchpersonshouldbeadoptedforcompletingtheassessmentwithinthetime specifiedu/s153BoftheAct.TheLd.ARinsupportofhiscontentionreferredthe judgmentoftheHon’bleSCinthecaseofSuperMalls(P.)Ltdv/sPCITreported in115taxmann.com105(SC). 5.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Theprovisionsofsection254(2)oftheAct empowerstheITATtorectifyanytypeofmistakeinitsorderprovideditshould beapparentfromtherecord.Themistakeapparentfromtherecordhasbeenthe subjectmatterofcontinuouslitigation.TheHon’bleCourtstimeandagainhas definedtheapparentmistakesthroughjudicialpronouncements.Assuch,the apparentmistakereferstosucherror/sorinconsistencythatisevidentfromthe faceofthedocuments/orderoftheauthorityinrespectofwhichtwoviewsarenot possible.Theapparentmistakecanbeintheformofcalculation,data,wrong assumptionoffacts,misinterpretationoftheprovisionsoflaw,misreportingof income,deduction,oranyotherrelevantinformation.However,themistakes whichrequirearguments,debate,evaluationoflaw/factsinitsdetermination,the samecannotbereferredasmistakeapparentfromtherecord.Likewise,inthe eventofanyordergivenbytheITATwhichisallegedtobebasedonthewrong assumptionoffactsorlaw,butafterdueapplicationofmind,thenthesame cannotbetermedasamistakeapparentfromtherecord.Itisbecausetheview hasbeenformedbytheITATafterconsideringthenecessaryfactsandthelawon thepointofdispute,thenthesamecannotbereviewedagaininthegarbof apparentmistake.Inotherwords,theerrorofjudgementcannotbedescribedas amistakeapparentfromrecord.Insuchasituation,theaggrievedpartyshould approachthehigherforumfortheredressaloftheissueinvolvedinthedispute. Inthebackdropoftheabovediscussion,weproceedtothefactsofthepresent caseandfindthattheissuearisesforourconsiderationwhatshouldbethecut-off dateforcompletingtheassessmentinthecaseofthepersonotherthanthe search,inasituationwheretheAOofthesearchpersonandpersonotherthan MANos.105-106/Ahd/2023in IT(SS)Anos.15-154/AHD/2021 A.Y.s2012-13&2013-14 6 thesearchiscommon.Inthecaseoftheassessmentotherthanthesearch person,theproceedingsu/s153CoftheActareinitiatedwheretheAOofthe searchpersonhandoverstheseizedmaterialsbelongingtothepersonotherthan thesearchtotheAOhavingjurisdictiontosuchotherpersonandaccordinglythe timelimitforcompletingtheassessmentisreckonedfromendofthefinancial yearinwhichtheseizedmaterialsarehandedover.However,theHon’bleSCin thecaseofSuperMalls(P.)Ltd.(supra)hasheldthatthereisnoneedtotransmit thedocumentfromtheAOofthesearchpersontotheAOofthepersonother thanthesearchifbotharecommon.Thus,insuchsituationthereisnoneedto handovertheseizeddocuments.Thequestionarisesintheabsenceofhanding overofthedocumenthowtocalculatethetimelimitforcompletingthe assessmentinthecaseofsuchotherpersoninthemannerprovidedundersection 153BoftheAct.Suchissueiscertainlyadebatableissueandrequireslotsof interpretationandlongdrawnprocesstoreachtotheconclusion.Assuch,weare oftheviewthatsuchdebatableissuecannotberaisedinthemiscellaneous applicationfiledu/s254(2)oftheAct.Theissuetobedealtundertheprovisions ofsection254(2)oftheActarelimitedtotheextentofapparentmistakes discussedabove.Accordingly,wearenotconvincedwiththeargumentoftheLd. DRappearingonbehalfoftherevenue.Hence,theMiscellaneousApplicationfiled bytherevenueisherebydismissed. 5.1Intheresult,theMiscellaneousApplicationfiledbytherevenueis dismissed. ComingtotheMANo.106/Ahd/2023inITANo.154/Ahd/2021forAY 2013-14 6.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissueraisedbytherevenueinthecaptioned appealfortheAY2013-14isidenticaltotheissueraisedbytheRevenueinMANo. 105/Ahd/2023fortheassessmentyear2012-13.Therefore,thefindingsgivenin MANos.105-106/Ahd/2023in IT(SS)Anos.15-154/AHD/2021 A.Y.s2012-13&2013-14 7 MANo.105/Ahd/2023shallalsobeapplicablefortheyearunderconsiderationi.e. assessmentyear2013-14.TheissueraisedbytheRevenueforAY2012-13has beendecidedbyusvideparagraphNo.5ofthisorderagainsttheRevenue.The learnedDRandtheARalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsforthe assessmentyear2012-13shallalsobeappliedforyearunderconsiderationi.e. theassessmentyear2013-14.Hence,theMAfiledbytheRevenueishereby dismissed. 6.1IntheresultMAoftheRevenueisherebydismissed. 7.Inthecombinedresult,boththeMiscellaneousApplicationsoftherevenue areherebydismissed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton05/04/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (TRSENTHILKUMAR)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated05/04/2024 Manish