Limitation u/s153(2A) runs from departmental receipt of order, not jurisdictional Commissioner; Revenue appeal dismissed

HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the ITAT's finding that the draft and final assessment orders were barred by limitation under s.153(2A) IT Act. Relying on its earlier Full Bench ruling, HC held that the expression "is received" in s.153(2A) must be construed in parity with s.260A, referring to the date the order is received by the Department, not by the "concerned" or jurisdictional Commissioner/PCIT. HC rejected the Revenue's contention that limitation should commence from receipt by the specific Commissioner, holding that such an interpretation would impermissibly rewrite the statute.

---

---

In these connected income tax appeals (ITA 149/2024 and ITA 151/2024), the High Court first dealt with applications seeking condonation of delay. It recorded that, "bearing in the mind the disclosures made," the delay of 31 days in filing and 490 days in re-filing the appeals was condoned, and the delay applications were disposed of accordingly. On the merits, the Court noted that the issues raised by the appellant were already adjudicated and "stand concluded against them" by an earlier judgment in ITA 63/2024. Treating that prior decision as binding and directly applicable, the Court followed it and dismissed the present appeals. No independent or additional substantive reasoning was provided, the dismissal resting entirely on the precedent set in ITA 63/2024.

---