TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1634
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Kolkata (the 'Tribunal' in short) in ITA No.1088/Kol/2016 for the assessment year 2009-10. The appellant/assessee has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: (a) Whether the Tribunal failed to consider that any order made beyond March 31, 2015, would be hit by sub-section (2) of section 263 of the said Act in the present case, as no order can be made under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the said Act, after expiry of 2 years from the end of the financial year, 2012-13, in which the order sought to be revised, was passed, as the order under section 263 was deemed to be made over to the petitioners on February 29, 2016 in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated April 20, 2015 ? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Soumyadeep Biswas, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/assessee and Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Prithu Dudheria and Mr. Anurag Ray, learned advocates for the respondent/revenue. The assessee was in appeal before the learned tribunal challenging an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2 (PCIT, in short) dated 23rd March, 2015 passed under Section 263 of the Act. The appellant/assessee had raised the following grounds before the learned tribunal: "1. For that the order passed u/s 263 by the Ld. CIT is barred by limitation, as such, the order passed u/s 263 is liable to be quashed. 2. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here was no error in the order passed by the A.O. u/s. 147. 8. For that the Ld. CIT exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the Ld. A.O. as to how the fresh assessment should be framed by him." From the above grounds of appeal filed by the assessee before the tribunal, we find that the first ground urged before the tribunal is that the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act is barred by limitation. There are other grounds which have been raised by the assessee which are not required to be gone into for taking a decision in the present appeal. The learned tribunal had heard the appellant's appeal petition along with three other cases and by a common order dated 5th August, 2016 dismissed all the appeals. We find from parag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad preferred an appeal before the tribunal which on the date of filing was barred by limitation, it was delayed by a period of 19 days. The learned tribunal took note of the direction issued by the learned Writ Court in the said writ petition and condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The next course that the tribunal should have adopted is to consider the appellant's appeal petition on merits, more particularly on the grounds which have been canvassed before the tribunal as noted above. However, the tribunal was of the view that the issues raised in all the four appeals which were heard together are squarely covered by several orders passed by the tribunal including the order in the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Private Ltd. vs. CIT passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d approached this Court and filed a writ petition against the order passed under section 263 of the Act and in the said writ petition the appellants were granted liberty to pursue their remedies against the order dated March 29, 2015 by reckoning the date of receipt of such order as on February 29, 2016. Therefore, the issue would be whether the proceedings are barred by limitation. Thus, the appellants ought to have been granted liberty to canvass the issue before the learned Tribunal. More particularly when they have specifically raised the same as one of the grounds in the appeal memorandum filed before the learned Tribunal. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that on merits also the appellants have got an ex....