THE DCIT / ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT V. SHRI PRINCEKUMAR KANTILAL RABARA, RAJKOT

MA 8/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) challenging the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer, which were allegedly beyond the prescribed time limits under section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal had overlooked important Supreme Court judgments and legislative relaxations due to the COVID-19 pandemic that extended statutory time limits. However, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's cited judgments and legislative provisions did not pertain to the specific time limits applicable in this case, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 836544 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Rajiv Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC), Chottabhai Vs. Union of India 1962 SCR Supl.2 1006, Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253, Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma [2004] 2 SCC 759, Indian Bank's Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service AIR 2004 SC 2615, Orissa Rural Housing Development Corpn. Ltd, 343 ITR 316(Orissa), Master Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: FENIL H. MEHTA; LD
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 12A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. Nos. 7 to 10/Rjt/2025 (In IT(SS)A Nos. 78 to 81 /RJT/2023) (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot Vs. Chintankumar Rameshbhai Patel, Block No. 243, Janakpuri Society, Street No. 7, B/h Sahuvasvani School, University Road, Rajkot ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AXPPP2200B (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) िनधाŊįरतीकीओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. AR राजˢकीओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 12/12/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 13/02/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: By way of these miscellaneous applications, the assessee has sought to point out that a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short ‘ the Act’) has crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 27-11-2024. 2. The grievance of the Revenue in these Miscellaneous Applications are identical and same, therefore, we have clubbed these Miscellaneous Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 7 to 10/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Chintankumar Rameshbhai Patel 2 Applications and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Learned senior DR for the Revenue, vehemently argued that Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu writ petition in MA No.21 of 2022, has extended the time which is applicable to the assessee under consideration, which is not followed by the Tribunal, hence order passed by the assessing officer is within the time limit therefore, there is an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal. Besides, the Tribunal did not consider the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC). The Decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is not acceptable on merit, considering the extension provided under Taxation and other law (Relaxation and amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020 and time to time notification issued thereto by the Board (CBDT). During the COVID- 19 pandemic to redress the challenges faced by the taxpayers in meeting the statutory requirements due to the pandemic as a relief measure for various compliance, proceedings, the President of India, on 31st March 2020, the promulgated the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance 2020 (TOLA) to extend time limits for completion or compliance of actions under the specified Acts falling. The CBDT, vide Notification No. 35 of 2020, dated 24 June 2020, had extended the time limit to complete any action referred in clause (a) of sub section (1) of section (3) of the said Act. Therefore, assessment order was framed by the assessing officer within the time limit. Therefore, order passed by the Tribunal, on merit, needs to be rectified. 4. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Tribunal has considered all the judgements including suo motu writ petition Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 7 to 10/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Chintankumar Rameshbhai Patel 3 in MA No. 21 of 2022. The ld. Counsel stated that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Rajiv Bansal does not deal with time limit of particular section for issuance of notice u/s 153B of the Act. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal & others deals with time limit to reopen the assessment and time limit to issue the notice for reassessment and it does not deal with time limit mentioned in other sections of the Income tax Act. Hence, order passed by the Tribunal does not contain mistake apparent from record, therefore, these miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue, may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that Tribunal has passed elaborate order, after hearing both the parties, by concluding as follows: “22. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. For the sake of clarity and also being pertinent, we reproduce, the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 153B of the Act, which reads as under: “153B. Time limit for completion of assessment under section 153A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 153, the Assessing Officer shall make an order of assessment or reassessment,— (a) in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A, within a period of twenty-one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed; (b) in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A, within a period of twenty-one months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorizations for search under section 132 or for requisition under section 132A was executed: Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 7 to 10/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Chintankumar Rameshbhai Patel 4 Provided that in case of other person referred to in section 153C, the period of limitation for making the assessment or reassessment shall be the period as referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section or nine months from the end of the financial year in which books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over under section 153C to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, whichever is later: ……………………” 23. Therefore, the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153B of the Act, clearly states that assessment u/s 153C of the Act, should be completed, within the time limit mentioned in clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-section 1 of section153B of the Act, or nine Months from the end of the financial year, in which, books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over under section 153C of the Act, to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, whichever is later.Therefore, as per the above proviso, the assessment should be completed within 9 months or 21 months, whichever is later. Therefore, taking the lead case ( as an example) in IT(SS)A No.78/Rjt/2023, for assessment Year 2016-17, in case of Chintan Kumar Rameshbhai Patel, we note that assessment order was passed by the assessing officer, under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act, on 21.04.2021. The assessment order ought have been passed on 31.12.2020. Therefore, number of days of delay in passing the assessment order comes at 111 days. We should examine, the conditions and the time limit mentioned in section 153B of the Act, as follows: (A).In this case, date of execution of authorization is 15.02.2017. Now, we can count 21 Months from the end of the financial year 2016-17, in which the last of the authorization for search was executed, which ends on 31.12.2018. (April 2017 to December 2018= 21 Months). (B).Date on which documents were handed over to assessing officer, or received by the assessing officer, is 09.08.2019 and now, we can count 9 months from the end of the financial year 2019-20, in which book of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned were handed over, which ends on, 31.12.2020. (April 2020 to December 2020= 9 Months). Assessment order ought to have been passed on (A) or (B), whichever is later, that is, on 31.12.2020. However, actual date of passing the assessment order in the assessee`s, case, is on 21.04.2021, hence, assessment order passed by the assessing officer, under section 153C read with section 143(3), dated 21.04.2021, is barred by limitation, by 111 days, therefore, the assessment order, should be quashed, on this fact only. Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 7 to 10/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Chintankumar Rameshbhai Patel 5 24. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted before the Bench, a chart showing, appeal- wise, status stating the date of assessment order passed, and the date on which the assessment order ought to have been passed, and the number of days of delay in passing the assessment order as per the conditions mentioned in section 153B of the Act, etc. have been stated, which is reproduced below for ready reference: 25. We have examined the facts stated in the above chart and noted that in all the appeals, the similar and identical issues were involved, and in case of every appeal, noted above, the assessment order is time barred, therefore, the assessment order, passed by the assessing officer under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act, needs to be quashed. 26. Article 265 of the Constitution of India lays down that, “No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the this provision under Article 265 of the Constitution of India is applicable not only for levy but also for the collection of taxes and the expression “assessment” within its compass covers both the aspects carried out by the executive functionary. Chottabhai Vs. Union of India 1962 SCR Supl.2 1006. Therefore, it is required that whole of the process of taxation must follow the procedures which are valid under the law and must adhere to law i.e. substantive Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 7 to 10/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Chintankumar Rameshbhai Patel 6 one as well as procedural one too. Therefore, in other words it is provided in the Constitution of India that every step should be taken to ensure that levy and collection of the taxes is strictly in accordance with law – not only substantive one but the procedural law, as well. 27. Time limit is laid down for dealing with the return filed by an Assessee. This is to ensure finality to all matters. Purpose behind time limit laid down in various provisions of the Act, including the provisions of section 153B of the Act, are as follows: (i) To promote Repose. In the context of limitation of actions, \"repose\" includes at least four distinct but overlapping concepts: (a) to allow peace of mind; (b) to avoid disrupting settled expectations; (c) to reduce uncertainty about the future; and (d) to reduce the cost of measures designed to guard against the risk of untimely claims. (ii) Minimize Deterioration of Evidence. Another policy underlying statutes of limitation is the policy of avoiding deterioration of evidence. Like the policy of promoting repose, however, avoiding deterioration of evidence serves several distinct but overlapping purposes: (a) to ensure accuracy in fact finding; (b) to prevent the assertion of fraudulent claims; (c) to reduce the costs of litigation; and (d) to preserve the integrity of the legal system. (iii) Place Defendants and Plaintiffs on an Equal Footing. One of the most powerful policies supporting limitation of actions is the concern that the passage of time will not only result in the deterioration of evidence, but that it will also allow the plaintiff to gain an unfair advantage over the defendant. Many cases have recognized that one of the purposes of a limitation system is to avoid making it unreasonably difficult for defendants to answer the claims against them. (iv) Encourage the Prompt Enforcement of Substantive Law. Arguably, \"the central purpose of law is to guide behavior.\" Therefore, time limit to pass an assessment order, under any particular section of the Income Tax Act, should be followed strictly. 27. Law is well settled that when the statute requires to do certain thing in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim 'Expressio unius est exclusion alteris', meaning there by that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following of other course is not permissible. (Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor AIR Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 7 to 10/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Chintankumar Rameshbhai Patel 7 1936 PC 253; Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma [2004] 2 SCC 759 and Indian Bank's Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service AIR 2004 SC 2615). Similar view has been expressed in the Orissa Rural Housing Development Corpn. Ltd, 343 ITR 316(Orissa). We note that Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu writ petition in MA No. 21 of 2022 (SC- - Suo Motu Writ Petition-COVID period) and stated that in assessee’s case assessment order was framed by the assessing officer, beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153B of the Act, because Covid-19 period was involved, where everybody was working with safety, therefore assessment order was framed late, due to COVID-19 pandemic, hence as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), there should not be any delay in framing the assessment order. 28. We do not agree with the above, stand taken by the Ld. DR for the revenue, as the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu writ petition in MA No. 21 of 2022, is applicable to appeals and petitions, to be filed, before various Courts and Tribunals and not for framing, the assessment order. That is, MA No. 21 of 2022 in (SC) - Suo Motu Writ Petition(supra) does not apply to the time limit for framing the assessment order or reassessment order. The important para of the above judgement of the Hon`ble Supreme Court, clarifies this situation, which reads as follows: “It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” 29.We find that in the assessee`s case under consideration, the assessment order was not framed within the time limit prescribed under section 153B of the Act, therefore, assessment order passed by the assessment officer, dated 21.04.2021, under section 153C read with section 143(3) of the Act, is here by quashed, and consequently, we allow the appeal of the assessee. 30. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in IT(SS)A No.78/RJT/2023, is allowed. 31. As the assessment order itself is quashed, therefore, all other issues on merits of the additions, in the impugned assessment proceedings, are rendered academic and infructuous. 32. Since the facts and circumstances in the case of other appeals, viz: in IT(SS)A Nos. 79, 80, and 81/RJT/2023, are identical to those considered in the case of IT(SS)A No.78/RJT/2023, therefore, our decision in the case of IT(SS)A Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 7 to 10/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Chintankumar Rameshbhai Patel 8 No.78/RJT/2023, shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of other appeals of the assessees, also. Accordingly, the appeal, in IT(SS)A Nos. 79, 80, and 81/RJT/2023, are also allowed. 33. In the combined result, appeals filed by the assessees, in IT(SS)A No.78/RJT/2023, and in IT(SS)A Nos. 79, 80, and 81/RJT/2023, are allowed.” 6. We note that Tribunal has also considered the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo motu writ petition in MA No. 21 of 2022, which is applicable to appeals and petitions, to be filed, before various Courts and Tribunals and not for framing, the assessment order. We note that judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal & others(Supra), also does not apply to the assessee. It is settled position of Law that the Tribunal cannot sit again to review or to examine its own conclusion, as it is not permitted by the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. As observed by the Supreme Court in Master Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360, an error which is apparent on the face of the record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. The plain meaning of the word ‘apparent’ is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate. It is therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification. 7. We note that these all miscellaneous applications filed by the revenue contain the identical and common issue, therefore arguments advanced by the learned DR for the revenue and learned Counsel for the assessee shall apply to all the miscellaneous applications. Printed from counselvise.com M.A. Nos. 7 to 10/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Shri Chintankumar Rameshbhai Patel 9 8. Therefore, we note that failure of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. Review proceedings imply proceedings where a party, as of right, can apply for reconsideration of the matter, already decided upon, after a fresh hearing on the merits of the controversy between the parties, such remedy is certainly not provided by section 254(2) the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, in the garb of an application for rectification, the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and re-argue the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of the section 254(2) of the Act. We note that the Tribunal has considered all the facts and the legal issue and then after the order was framed hence there is no mistake apparent on record, therefore, these all Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the combined result, all the Miscellaneous Applications, filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13-02-2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A. L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot Dated: 13/02/2026 True Copy आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar/ Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "