2025 (2) TMI 1559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... wherein it has pleaded that both the impugned orders are time barred and therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its return of income on 26.09.2013 and 27.09.2015 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16. Both these years were selected for scrutiny assessments by issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). The assessments have been framed on 03.03.2016 and 10.08.2017. 3.1 The AO has reopened the assessments and who ultimately passed the re-assessment orders under Section 147 read with Section 144 on 23.03.2022 for both the years. The ld. CIT harboured a belief that assessment orders in both the assessment years are erroneous an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essments were reopened for different reasons. He took us through the copies of reasons available at page No. 49-50 in assessment year 2013-14 and page No. 46 to 47 in assessment year 2015-16. The reason for taking action under Section 147 was assigned by the AO in sub-para (3) of the Reasons, which read as under : A.Y. 2013-14 '3. Analysis of Information collected/received;- The case of the assessee Is flagged by DIT(System) under High Risk Non Pan CRJU/VRU Case on the recommendations of Disseminated Information Risk assessment Committee, constituted by the Board. As per Information available, the assessee company is builder company and has to pay CLU and EDC charges at Rs. 2,24,48,000/- to GMADA but the same ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Vs Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 7 SCC 215. This judgement has subsequently been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Mumbai Vs Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. He placed on record copy of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. which is reported in 454 ITR 811. According to the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5.1 On the other hand ld. CIT-DR was unable to controvert the proposition propounded by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 6. We have duly consider....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rred. For buttressing our reasoning, we taken note of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd. (supra) which read as under : "i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the period of limitation for passing order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has to be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order or from the date of the reassessment order?" At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that, as such, the Commissioner exercised powers under Section 263 of the Act with respect to the issues which were not covered in the re-assessment proceedings. Therefore, the issues before the Commissioner while ....