TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sake of convenience, the Appeal in ITA No. 621/Del/2024 (AY 2015-16) is taken up as lead case, hence, facts are narrated from the said appeal. ITA NO. 621/DEL/2024 (AY 2015-16) 3. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi dated 13.12.2023. The assessee is in second round of litigation before the Tribunal. Earlier the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 6445/Del/2018 was allowed for statistical purposes by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2019 and was restored to the Assessing Officer with specific directions to verify the trail of the money received by the assessee by way of share capital/ unsecured loans. The AO in compliance of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal framed the assessment vide order dated 23.04.2021 u/s. 153A read with section 254/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "Act"). 4. Shri Ved Jain, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Assessee submits that the assessee in appeal has inter alia, assailed validity of assessment order dated 23.04.2021 (supra) on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee submits t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17 October, 1985it was held The Supreme Court ruled that the Court cannot interpret a definition clause unless it explicitly states "unless the context otherwise requires." This is because the definition clause itself states "unless the context otherwise requires". The Court should interpret the word "India" as it is defined in the enactment, "unless the context otherwise requires". (Ref- Page 2-4). B. The meaning and interpretation of the word "litigant has also been elucidated here by analysing few case laws and provisions. The actual litigant is the concerned CIT itself, while the CIT/DR acts on its behalf and assists the Tribunal. Case laws clarify that the CIT/DR is not a party to the appeal but only a representative, with no independent right to appeal or contest beyond the department's stance. 1. CIT vs. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (1961) - Supreme Court Ruling-The Supreme Court ruled that the Revenue Department is the real litigant, not the CIT/DR, who only assists the tribunal and presents the department's case.(Ref- Page 5) 2. ITAT Rules, 1963 - Rule 10 (Representation of Parties) (Ref- Page 6). 3. Delhi High Court in CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CIT(DR) on 28.03.2019 the limitation period u/s. 153(3) starts from the said date. 7. The assessee has raised the issue of validity of assessment order on the ground of limitation before the ld. CIT(A) as well, however, while deciding appeal of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) circumvented the issue and has not given any finding on the issue raised in Ground no. 2 of first appeal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in assessee's group concerns wherein, we find that identical issue was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case CIT vs. Odeon Builders (P) Ltd. 393 ITR 27 (Delhi) [FB] and on decision in the case of CIT vs. Sudhir Choudhrie (2005) 278 ITR 490 (Delhi) and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. For the sake of completeness, the relevant extract of the Tribunal's order in ITA No. 457/Del/2024 (Supra) is reproduced herein under:- "6. The Identical controversy towards bar of limitation came up for adjudication before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Jain, Virendra Kumar Jain vs Pr.CIT (Central- I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the judicial precedents quoted above, we find substantial merit in the plea of the assessee that all the assessment orders giving rise to the captioned appeals have been passed much beyond the statutory time limit available under s. 153(3) of the Act and thus a nullity in law at the threshold." 9. We further find that while deciding appeals of assessee's group entities, the Coordinate Bench in lead appeal ITA No. 3817/Del/2023 (Supra) under identical set of facts held that the period of limitation starts from the date of the order served on CIT(DR) office. 10. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the Tribunal order dated 28.02.2019 was pronounced in the open court and thus, the CIT(DR) had knowledge of the said order. Further, the order was served on CIT(DR) on the same date. Thus, in light of facts of the case and the decisions rendered above, we find merits in Ground No. 3 of appeal. As the assessment order was served on the office of the CIT(DR) on 28.03.2019, the time available to the AO for passing the assessment order was upto to 31.12.2019. Since, the assessment order was passed on 23.04.2021, consequently the same is barred by limitation and no-nest in the e....