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>Reassessment with distinct subject matter doesn't extend Section 263 revision limitation period from original assessment</h1> <h3>M/s Jainsons Agrochem Industries Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajasthan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Jodhpur.</h3> M/s Jainsons Agrochem Industries Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajasthan, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Jodhpur. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Period of limitation for passing an order under Section 263.3. Distinction between original assessment and reassessment orders.4. Legality of the notice dated 09.01.2024 issued under Section 263.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The petitioner challenged the proceedings initiated under Section 263 of the Act, claiming they were time-barred. The petitioner argued that the issues addressed in the notice under Section 263 pertained to the original assessment order and not to the reassessment order. The court noted that the Commissioner's powers under Section 263 are revisional and must be exercised within the prescribed period of limitation.2. Period of limitation for passing an order under Section 263:The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd., which clarified that the period of limitation for passing an order under Section 263 should be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order if the issues are not covered in the reassessment proceedings. The court observed that the limitation period for exercising powers under Section 263 is two years from the end of the financial year in which the original assessment order was passed, as per Section 263(2) of the Act.3. Distinction between original assessment and reassessment orders:The court emphasized that the subject matter of the reassessment was distinct and different from the original assessment. The reassessment order dated 25.03.2022 only addressed the shortfall in the job charges account amounting to Rs. 2,32,330/-. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling, which stated that if the subject matter of reassessment is distinct, the limitation period for Section 263 should relate back to the original assessment order.4. Legality of the notice dated 09.01.2024 issued under Section 263:The court found that the notice dated 09.01.2024 was issued beyond the period of limitation, as it pertained to issues in the original assessment order and not the reassessment order. The court held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 could not be invoked as the limitation period had expired. Consequently, the notice and the entire proceedings pursuant to it were quashed and set aside.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice dated 09.01.2024 and the proceedings under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period when exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
