2023 (5) TMI 874 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment order quashed due to time limit breach, rendering other issues moot. Assessees' appeals allowed.

Marudhar Diamond Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT And ACIT Versus M/s Marudhar Diamond Pvt. Ltd. And Saffron Gems Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT And ACIT Versus M/s Saffron Gems Pvt. Ltd. And Nobal Jewells Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT And ACIT Versus M/s Nobal Jewels Pvt. Ltd. And Antique Exim Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT And ACIT Versus M/s Antique Exim Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment order as it was passed beyond the statutory time limit. Consequently, all other issues on the merits of the additions ... Validity of Assessment order passed u/s 143(3) - period of limitation specified u/s 153(1) - Time limit dealing with the return of income filed by an assessee - time limit for completion of assessment u/s 153(1) in the assessee`s case is within 21 months - In the assesee`s case the assessment was not framed/passed by the AO within 21 months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, that is, on 31.12.2019 - AO should follow the time limit prescribed under the Act, otherwise assessment order passed by him will not be recognized in the eye of law - Why the time limit in the Income Tax Act is so necessary? HELD THAT:- Assessment/reassessment framed/passed by the Assessing Officer is in violation of the provisions of the Act, that is, it is outside the time limit for completion of assessment u/s 153(1) of the Act, which was within 21 months. In the assesee`s case, the assessment was not framed/passed by the Assessing Officer within 21 months from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable, that is, on 31.12.2019. AO has passed/framed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.09.2021, which is beyond the time-limit for completion of assessment u/s 153(1) of the Act. Therefore, assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer is in violation of the provisions of section 153(1) of the Act, which is bad in law, hence we quash the assessment order, dated 30.09.2021, framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act, being void ab initio. Assessment order framed by the AO was not in accordance with law, therefore we have quashed the assessment order. Issues Involved:1. Limitation period for filing the appeal.2. Validity of the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Addition of suppressed profits on sale of goods.4. Disallowance of purchases from disputed parties.5. Admission of additional grounds of appeal.Summary:1. Limitation Period for Filing the Appeal:The appeal filed by the assessee in the case of M/s Nobal Jewels Pvt. Ltd. was initially considered barred by one day. However, it was clarified that the delay was due to a mistake in computing the days, and the date of filing the appeal should not be included in the computation. Thus, the appeal was admitted for adjudication.2. Validity of the Assessment Order:The primary issue was whether the assessment order passed under section 143(3) was beyond the limitation period specified under section 153(1) of the Act. The assessee argued that the assessment order dated 30.09.2021 was time-barred as it should have been completed by 31.12.2019. The Revenue contended that the assessment was within the extended period allowed by various notifications due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was indeed time-barred and quashed the assessment order, stating it was void ab initio.3. Addition of Suppressed Profits:The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,72,422/- as suppressed profits on the sale of goods. The assessee provided exhaustive documentary evidence, and all transactions were through banking channels. The Tribunal found the addition unjustified as it relied on third-party statements without allowing cross-examination.4. Disallowance of Purchases from Disputed Parties:The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 26,73,775/- on purchases from disputed parties. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided substantial evidence to support the transactions and that the payments were made through banking channels. The Tribunal deemed the disallowance unjustified.5. Admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal:The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment order on the basis that it was passed beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal admitted this ground, noting that it went to the root of the matter and all facts were already on record. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs. CIT, which allows such legal grounds to be admitted and adjudicated.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the assessment order as it was passed beyond the statutory time limit. Consequently, all other issues on the merits of the additions became academic and infructuous. The appeals of the assessees were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.