2013 (11) TMI 812 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rules reassessment beyond time limit, AO's actions time-barred

Income Tax Officer 13(2) Versus M/s. Aaren Chemicals

Income Tax Officer 13(2) Versus M/s. Aaren Chemicals - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of re-assessment proceedings.2. Interpretation of Section 150(1) and 150(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Validity of notice under Section 148 beyond the period of six years.4. Examination of findings and directions in appellate orders.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Re-assessment Proceedings:The primary issue was whether the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2001-02 were within jurisdiction. The AO initiated re-assessment based on the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for the assessment year 2005-06, alleging that the CIT(A) directed the AO to re-open the assessment for 2001-02.2. Interpretation of Section 150(1) and 150(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The CIT(A) held that there was no direction under Section 150(1) of the Act to initiate re-assessment proceedings for the year 2001-02. The AO relied on Section 150(1) and/or 150(2) to justify the re-assessment. However, the CIT(A) found that the original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and the re-assessment was initiated beyond the permissible period of six years, making it time-barred.3. Validity of Notice under Section 148 Beyond the Period of Six Years:The notice under Section 148 was issued on 06.11.09, beyond the six-year limit from the end of the relevant assessment year, which ended on 31.03.08. The CIT(A) concluded that the re-assessment proceedings were not justified and were without jurisdiction as they were initiated beyond the statutory period, and there was no valid direction or finding in the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2005-06 to reopen the assessment for 2001-02.4. Examination of Findings and Directions in Appellate Orders:The CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06 observed that the sundry creditors were old and the relevant purchases were made in earlier years, not in 2005-06. The CIT(A) did not direct the AO to reopen the assessment for 2001-02 but only mentioned that the AO could examine the purchases in the respective years if warranted by facts and circumstances, strictly within the law. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that these observations did not constitute a direction to reopen the assessment for 2001-02.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the AO's action to issue notice under Section 148 was barred by limitation and not saved by Section 150(1) or 150(2). The Tribunal found that there was no direction or finding in the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2005-06 to justify reopening the assessment for 2001-02. Therefore, the re-assessment proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction, and the appeal by the department was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 06.11.2013.