The Delhi High Court has accepted the returned income for a span of 12 years, as the period within which a fresh assessment order could be passed had lapsed.
Title: INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LTD versus PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LTU] NEW DELHI & ANR
+ W.P.(C) 8313/2018
Decided on: 08.12.2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Facts:
The petitioner filed income tax returns for Assessment Years (AY) 1998-99 to 2009-10 under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act. Scrutiny led to separate assessment orders under Section 143(3) of the Act. Appeals by the revenue for AYs 1998-99 to 2002-03 resulted in a court order on 21.10.2011, setting aside the orders and remanding the matter to the Tribunal. Via orders on 21.11.2014 and 29.05.2015, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for further consideration.
The AO initiated proceedings by issuing notices, starting on 18.05.2016. Due to expiration of limitation, the petitioner, in its responses from around 2016, contended that the AO couldn’t proceed with a fresh assessment order. This objection was explicitly communicated on 15.07.2016. On 28.06.2018, the petitioner requested the acceptance of its returned income for a refund.
On 19.07.2018, the AO issued a notice directing the petitioner to appear on 25.07.2018 and provide relevant documents for AYs 1998-99 to 2009-10. The petitioner, in communications on 25.07.2018 and 02.08.2018, reiterated the expiration of limitation. As the AO persisted, the petitioner approached the court on 08.08.2018 through the current writ petition. The case involves a dispute over the AO’s attempt to revive assessment proceedings despite the expiration of the statutory limitation period.
Laws Involved:
- Section 153 of Income Tax Act
- Section 153 (2A) of Income Tax Act
Issue:
Whether limitation for passing fresh assessment order(s) in consonance with aforementioned order of the Tribunal had expired?
Courts Judgement and Analysis:
In light of the mentioned circumstances, the court, on 02.02.2023, requested Mr. Abhishek Maratha, the learned senior standing counsel, to provide information about whether any assessment orders had been issued following the order dated 08.08.2018 by the coordinate bench. The court had granted time for this inquiry on 26.05.2023 and 18.08.2023.
Mr. Maratha informed the court that, based on his instructions, no assessment orders had been passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), despite the court providing an opportunity through its order dated 08.08.2018.
The court noted that the earlier version of the relevant section was Section 153(2A) and highlighted that Section 153 of the Income Tax Act was amended with retrospective effect from 01.06.2016 via the Finance Act, 2016. The court’s findings were based on the information provided by Mr. Maratha, indicating that no assessment orders had been issued despite the court’s previous directive.
The court noted that the counter-affidavit from the respondents did not specify the dates on which the orders dated 21.11.2014 and 29.05.2015 from the Tribunal were served on the petitioner. The crucial factor in determining the case was whether these orders were served on or after 01.04.2016 but on or before 31.05.2016.
Considering Section 153(2)(A) (the old provision), the limitation would expire on 31.03.2018. However, if the amended provision, Section 153(3) of the Act, were considered, the limitation would expire on 31.03.2017. The court cited precedent cases (Nokia India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.) supporting both perspectives.
Regardless of the regime applied, the court concluded that, as of the current date, the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked jurisdiction to pass assessment orders. Therefore, the prayers made in the writ petition were allowed.
The court directed that the assessment proceedings for AY 1998-99 to AY 2009-10, based on the Tribunal’s orders, had become time-barred. The AO was instructed to accept the petitioner’s return income for these years, and consequential orders would be passed accordingly. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and the interim order from 08.08.2018 was vacated.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aditi