ITO, Ward-36(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Steel Trading Corporation, Kolkata

MA 63/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3057 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, AM & S H RI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM] M. A. NO. 63 /KOL /201 4 IN I.T.A NO. 1624 / KOL/20 12 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 7 - 0 8 INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WD - 36(2), KOLKATA. VS. STEEL TRADING CORPORATION (PAN: AAVFS3019A) ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 .0 4 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 1 7 .0 4 .201 5 FOR THE A PPLICANT : SHRI K. L. KANAK, JCIT FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI V. N. DUTTA, ADVOCATE ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: BY WAY OF THIS MISC. APPLICATION REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1624/KOL/2012 FOR AY 2007 - 08 DATED 21.07.2014 AND FOR THIS, APPLICATION U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT IS FILED. 2. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. SR. DR THAT THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HE REFERRED TO THE PETITION WHEREIN THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED WHICH READS AS UNDER: WE FIND THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 143(2) OF THE ACT, I.E. (II) PROVISO AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.2008 AND WILL APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND BY VIRTUE OF THE SAME, THE LIMIT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE LU/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IS SIX MONTHS ONLY AND WHICH IS ALREADY EXPIRED ON 31.01.2008. HENCE, IT IS DECIDED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED IS BAD IN LAW. LD. SR. DR PARTICULARLY REFERRED TO THE PETITION S PARA 1, 2, 3 AND 4, WHEREIN MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CLEARLY SPELT O UT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1. IN THE INSTANT CASE, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.07.2007 FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 WAS SERVED ON 26.09.2008, I.E. WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH RETURN WAS FILED IN VIEW OF AMENDED PROVISION OF THE RELEVANT SECTION BY FINANCE ACT, 2008 EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.2008. THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CONTESTING THAT THE NOTICE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF TIME AS THE NOTICE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED AS PER RELEVANT PROVISIONS AS IT STANDS BEFORE FINANCE ACT, 2008. 2. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT (A PPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSING THE ASSESS MEN T ORDER DECIDED THE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDITY OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2), IN FAVO UR OF THE DEPARTMENT WITH AN OBSERVATION THAT THE AMENDMENT IS PROCEDURAL IN NATURE, T HE REFORE IT IS EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.2008 AND 2 MA NO. 63 /K/201 4 STEEL T RADING CORPN. A. Y 200 7 - 0 8 SO THE NOTICE CAN BE SERVED VALIDLY UPTO 30.09.2008. AS THE NOTICE WAS UNDISPUTEDLY SERVED BY THE A.O. ON 26.09.2008, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS DECLARED AS VALID. 3 THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THE ABOVE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, 'A' BENCH KOLKATA. THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THEIR ORDER DATED 21.07.2014 HELD THAT THE NOTICE W AS INVALID WITH OBSERVATION AS MENTIONED IN PARA 1. \ 4. THE RATIO APPLIED & OPINION FORMED AND THE FACTUAL APPLICATION OF THE SAME IN THIS CAS E CONTRADICTS EACH OTHER. IN ITS ORDER, THE HON'BLE ITAT OPINED THAT THE AMENDED PROV ISION OF THE ACT IS EFFECTIVE FROM 01.04.2008 AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE IS SIX MO NTH (OBVIOUSLY, IT SHOULD BE SIX MONTH FROM THE END OF THE YEAR AND NOT END OF THE MONTH, IN WHICH RETURN IS FILED) AND SO THE NOTICE COULD BE VALIDLY SERVED UPTO 30 .09.2008,BUT THE COUNTING WAS ERRONEOUSLY STARTED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT MONTH AS PER OLD PROVISION AND THEREBY ARRIVED AT THE ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION. 3 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE PETITION. WE FIND THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE DATES FOR LIMITATION ARE WRONGLY NOTED. IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL IN REGULAR COURSE. 4 . IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT . S D / - S D / - ( P . K. BANSAL ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 7TH APRIL , 201 5 JD.(SR.P. S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPLICANT : ITO, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA. 2 RESPONDENT STEEL TRADING CORPORATION, P - 22, SWALLOW LANE, KOLKATA - 700001. . 3 . THE CIT(A ) , KOLKATA 4. CIT , KOLKATA 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .