2013 (11) TMI 828

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sented on behalf of the Revenue. 3. It was submitted by the ld. AR that originally an assessment had been completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on 29.12.2010. It was the submission that the said assessment order was a subject matter of revision u/s 263 vide order dated 20.03.2013. It was the submission that the said order u/s 263 was the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No.820/Kol/2013. It was the submission that in the order u/s 263 the ld. CIT has raised various issues which if culminated in the assessment order by the AO would result in substantial injustice being done to the assessee. It was the submission that the order passed u/s 263, more so the operation of the said order was liable to be stayed. It was the su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ally held that "while granting stay or any other interlocutory order, the Tribunal shall have to keep in mind period of limitation prescribed in section 153(2A) and pass orders in light of same." The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs ITAT WP (C) No.4684 of 2010 dated 3rd August, 2012 also does not say that operation of the order u/s 263 can be stayed without taking into consideration the issue of limitation. In fact in the case before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court when the stay was granted by the Tribunal Delhi Benches of the ITAT limitation was still available. In the present case, however, granting stay of the operation of order passed u/s 263 by the ld. CIT would have an effect to make the order of the ld. CIT....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he period of limitation.' It was the submission that Stay of the proceedings should not be granted. . . . . . 5. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed* that the claim of ld. DR that the exclusion provided in the Explanation 1 to section 153 does not cover the period of stay *granted by the Tribunal, seems to be a reasonable ground expressed by the ld. D.R. and as no purpose would be served by staying proceedings in respect of giving effect to the order passed under section 263 rather than delaying in time available to the assessee to respond to the requisition by the Assessing Officer in the interest of natural justice, we are of the view that stay should not be granted in this case and the same stands dismissed. ....