TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tripura High Court: Appeals Allowed, Assessment Orders 2000-2005 Time-Barred</h1> <h3>UDAIPUR BONDED WAREHOUSE, TRIPURA Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Commissioner of Income Tax</h3> UDAIPUR BONDED WAREHOUSE, TRIPURA Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Commissioner of Income Tax - TMI Issues:- Disposal of appeals involving identical questions of law and facts for different assessment years.- Validity of assessment orders passed under Sections 143(3)/153A and 153D of the Income Tax Act.- Commissioner's suo-motu cognizance under Section 263 of the Act.- Orders of the Commissioner deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.- Appeals filed under Section 260A against the Commissioner's orders.- Challenge on the grounds of time-barred assessment orders.- Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision on the assessment orders being barred by limitation.- Revenue's decision not to challenge the Tribunal's orders.- Lack of jurisdiction due to time-barred proceedings.- Decision to set aside orders due to time-barred assessment.Analysis:The judgment by the Tripura High Court pertains to the disposal of five appeals concerning a common issue but for different assessment years. The appellant, an income tax assessee running a bonded warehouse, had undergone search and seizure operations under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act in 2005. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 153A for filing returns of income. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax then passed assessment orders under Sections 143(3)/153A and 153D, holding the assessee liable for taxes and initiating proceedings under Section 271(1)(c).Two separate proceedings ensued, with the appellant appealing the assessment orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner taking suo-motu cognizance under Section 263, deeming the orders erroneous and prejudicial to revenue's interest. The Commissioner set aside the assessment orders and directed reassessment, leading to appeals filed by the assessee under Section 260A before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.The Tribunal, in a significant decision, found the assessment orders for the years 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 to be time-barred and quashed them. The Revenue, upon being informed of this decision, chose not to challenge it. Consequently, the High Court acknowledged the lack of jurisdiction due to the time-barred proceedings and ruled to set aside the orders, emphasizing that no further action, even suo-motu, could be pursued if the initial assessment was time-barred.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing that since the assessment orders were time-barred, no further action could be taken, including reassessment. The court directed the records, if any, to be sent down promptly, bringing closure to the legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 