TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, under Section 254 of the IT Act, 1961. The limited ground on which the Writ Petition was filed was that the consequential order (Ext. P8) passed by the assessing authority was beyond the time limit specified under Section 153 (2A) of the IT Act as it stood prior to the amendments with effect from 01.06.2016. The learned Single Judge was referred to a judgment of another Single Judge of this Court in Patel R.P. (Dr.) v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam [2015 (4) KLT SN 97] where under almost identical circumstances, the learned Judge had found that even in a case where only one issue has been directed to be considered afresh by the Appellate Tribunal, the limitation under Section 153 (2A) would apply. It was found on the facts of that case that the Appellate Tribunal had directed the assessing authority to consider afresh one of the issues that had arisen for consideration in the appeal, and the said remand was sufficient for attracting the provisions of Section 153 (2A) of the IT Act. The learned Single Judge at whose instance the issue has now been placed before us for consideration differed with the judgment in Dr. R.P. Patel ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suant to the remand, had to be passed by the assessing authority within a year thereafter, as contemplated by the provisions of Section 153 (2A) of the IT Act as it then stood, the assessing authority did not pass any such order till 17.02.2023 on which date Ext. P8 order was passed. It is significant that in the meanwhile, finding that no consequential order had been passed by the Assessing Authority within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 153 (2A) of the IT Act, the petitioner had preferred an application dated 08.07.2022 seeking a refund of alleged excess amounts paid by him, apparently in anticipation of a favourable order from the Assessing Authority consequent to the remand by the Tribunal. 6. As already noticed, it was on being served with Ext. P8 consequential order of the Assessing Authority that the petitioner approached this Court through the Writ Petition aforementioned, which led to the issue being referred for consideration by this bench. 7. The provisions of Section 153 (2), (2A), and (3) of the IT Act as it stood during the relevant time read as follows: "Section 153(1)............ (2) No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner: Provided that where the order under section 250 or section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the 1st day of April, 2000, such an order of fresh assessment may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 2002 : Provided further that where the order under section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 but before the 1st day of April, 2011, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words "one y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tutory provisions that a specific provision was made under the statute for a time-bound completion of an assessment in relation to an assessee, pursuant to an order of remand by an Appellate Authority. In other words, the statutory mandate under the IT Act is that consequential orders pursuant to a remand by an Appellate or Revisional Authority should be passed within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Appellate/Revisional Authority was passed. This was apparently with a view to ensuring finality and certainty in matters of taxation so far as an assessee was concerned. Section 153 (3) qualifies the provisions of Section 153 (2A) by clarifying that where the assessment, reassessment, or re-computation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in any order passed by an Appellate/Revisional authority or of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under the Act, the provisions of Section 153 (2A) would not apply. In other words, the Scheme of the statutory provisions is that, where a consequential order of assessment that is required to be....