Limitation period for fresh assessment after ITAT remand starts from notification in open court, not certified copy receipt

Delhi HC held that the limitation period under Section 153(3) for fresh assessment following ITAT remand begins when authorities are notified of the order in open court, not when certified copies are formally received through administrative channels. The court rejected the department's argument that non-receipt through proper channels extends the limitation period, characterizing this as merely an internal administrative arrangement. Following the Odeon Buildwell precedent, the court emphasized strict adherence to the nine-month limitation period and allowed the writ petition since the department failed to comply with the ITAT order within the stipulated timeframe.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents failed to give appeal effect to the ITAT orders.
2. Whether the respondents should issue a refund of Rs. 25,44,671/- along with interest.
3. Whether the respondents should de-freeze the petitioner's bank accounts and release the attached properties.

Summary:

Issue 1: Failure to Give Appeal Effect to ITAT Orders

The petitioner filed a writ petition u/s 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give appeal effect to the ITAT orders in ITA No. 787/DEL/2014 & ITA No. 5517/DEL/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09. The petitioner contended that despite the ITAT order being communicated to the concerned authority of the Income Tax Department within the stipulated time, the respondents failed to pass a fresh assessment order. The respondents argued that the ITAT order never reached the concerned authority, and the limitation period u/s 153(3) of the Act would start only when the order is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The Court held that the expression "received" in Section 153(3) does not strictly mean a certified copy must be supplied through an appropriate mechanism and that the Department was aware of the ITAT order. Therefore, the respondents' failure to pass a fresh assessment order within the stipulated time led to the allowance of the writ petition.

Issue 2: Refund of Rs. 25,44,671/-

The petitioner argued that the total demand for all AYs against them is Rs. 40,22,661/-, whereas an amount of Rs. 65,67,332/- is already lying with the respondents, making the retention of Rs. 25,44,671/- contrary to law. The Court directed the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 25,44,671/- along with applicable interest as per law.

Issue 3: De-freezing Bank Accounts and Releasing Attached Properties

The petitioner sought the de-freezing of three bank accounts and the release of two attached properties. The Court directed the respondents to de-freeze the bank accounts and release the properties within two weeks of the judgment.

Conclusion:

The writ petition was allowed with directions to the respondents to remove the demands reflected in the ITBA portal, refund Rs. 25,44,671/- with interest, de-freeze the bank accounts, and release the attached properties within two weeks.

---