Assessment Orders Quashed for Exceeding Limitation Period

The court held that the assessment orders dated 22.12.2017 were beyond the limitation period, with the deadline for completing the remand assessment set at 31.12.2016. Consequently, the court quashed the assessment orders and related actions, allowing the writ petitions and disposing of pending applications.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessment orders made on 22.12.2017 under Section 153A read with Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2005-06 and subsequent years (up-to 2012-13) were barred by limitation.
2. Interpretation of the starting point of limitation for assessment proceedings post-remand by the ITAT.
3. Applicability of the non-obstante clause under Section 153A in overriding the general period of limitation.
4. The relevance and applicability of the Full Bench decision in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation of Assessment Orders:
The primary issue contested by the assessees was that the assessment orders dated 22.12.2017 were barred by limitation and thus needed to be quashed. The concerned assessments were completed following search and seizure proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The initial assessment for the block period was completed on 28.03.2013, and subsequent appeals and remands led to the final assessment order dated 22.12.2017. The assessees argued that the time available to the Assessing Officer (AO) to complete the remand assessment was only up to 31.12.2016, as per the then-existing proviso to Section 153(2A).

2. Starting Point of Limitation:
The court referred to the Full Bench decision in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, which clarified that the limitation period begins when the Departmental Representative (DR) receives a copy of the ITAT order. In this case, the DR received the ITAT order on 30.03.2016, making 31.03.2016 the starting point of limitation. Consequently, the AO had until 31.12.2016 to complete the assessment.

3. Applicability of Non-Obstante Clause Under Section 153A:
The revenue contended that Section 153A, with its non-obstante clause, overrides other provisions of the Act, including the general period of limitation. However, the court noted that Section 153B, which prescribes a two-year limitation period for search assessments, does not apply to remand assessments. The court emphasized that the special provision under Section 153(2A) applies to all remand assessments, including those arising from search and seizure proceedings.

4. Relevance of Odeon Builders Decision:
The court reiterated the principles laid down in Odeon Builders, emphasizing that the limitation period starts when the DR receives the ITAT order. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the limitation period should be extended due to the non-obstante clause in Section 153A. The court held that the nine-month limitation period under Section 153(2A) is a special provision applicable to all remand assessments, regardless of their origin.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the assessment orders dated 22.12.2017 were beyond the prescribed limitation period. The last valid date for completing the remand assessment was 31.12.2016. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned assessment orders and all consequential actions. The writ petitions were allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Order:
The impugned order pursuant to the remand dated 22.12.2017 and all consequential orders and actions are hereby quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. All the pending applications stand disposed of.

---