2015 (11) TMI 1743

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the impugned order passed u/s 206C of the Act is within reasonable time. In facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order passed by AO is time barred and hence deserves to be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of ld. AO in holding that steel plates and other materials generated from ship recycling process are "scrap" within the meaning of definition of "scrap" as provided u/s 206C of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of ld. AO in treating the appellant as "Assessee in default" u/s 206C(1) r.w.s. 206C(6), 206C(6A) and 206C(7) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....djudicate on this aspect of the matter, only a few material facts need to be taken note of. The period covered by the impugned order is 1st April, 2007 to 31st March, 2008, and the relevant assessment year thus is 2008-09. There is no dispute that the impugned order was passed on 25th March, 2014. On these facts, when assessee challenged the order as having been passed beyond the reasonable time, ld. CIT(A) rejected this grievance by holding as follows :- "3.3 The submissions are considered. It is seen that order is passed within a period of six years after the conduct of survey which took place on 17/09/2013. After the conduct of survey the order is passed within period of 6 months which is more than reasonable time. Further provisions fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. NHK Japal Broadcasting Corpotation (supra) in which it was held "that the date of knowledge was no relevant for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction in so far as the provisions of the Act were concerned. Time limit of four years prescribed by the Tribunal called for no interference and action was to be initiated by the competent authority under the Act where no limitation was prescribed within the period of four years. The acceptance of liability by the assessee would not by itself extend the period of limitation nor would it extend the reasonable time that was postulated by the scheme of the Act. Merely because it had a....