TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... illegal, non-est and liable to be quashed as the same has been passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153(6) of the Income Tax Act. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is illegal and liable to be quashed as the same has been passed violating the mandatory provisions of section 153D of the Act. (ii) That the purported approval u/s 153D of the Act is illegal, bad in law and also without application of mind. 3. Ld. AR of the assessee first submitted submissions on ground no.1 of cross objections i.e. jurisdictional issues raised in cross objections. In this regard, he submitted the relevant facts and his submissions are as under. He submitted that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in jewellery through her proprietorship concern, M/s Poonam Deep Buillions and Jewellers. The Income Tax Return for the year under consideration was filed on 07.11.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 12,93,570/-. 4. A search and seizure action was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee, i.e., D-58, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, on 29.11.2016, under Section 132 of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in support of the same. He submitted that thereafter, AO proceeded to conclude the assessment treating the entire purchase as bogus and passed the fresh assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 26.04.2024, making an addition of Rs. 15,59,13,279/- u/s 69C of the Act. In view of the above facts, it is submitted that the impugned assessment order dated 26.04.2024 is barred by limitations prescribed under Section 153(6) of the Act and is, therefore, liable to be quashed as being null and void ab initio. 7. Further ld. AR made submissions relating to the limitation issue and brought to our attention the statutory provision of Section 153(6) of the Act, which reads as under: "(6) Nothing contained in sub-sections (1), (1A) and (2) shall apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and recomputation which may, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3), (5) and (5A), be completed- (i) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, section 254, section 260, section 262, section 263,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong with the acknowledgement of the same and supporting annexure / proof of the same. Kindly see reply mentioned in column no. 1 11. He submitted that as is evident from the RTI response dated 06.03.2026, the ITAT order dated 28.02.2023 was received by the Departmental Representative on 23.03.2023, i.e., in the month of March 2023. Accordingly, the period of twelve months from the end of the month of March 2023 expired on 31.03.2024, and accordingly, the fresh assessment order in the second round was required to be passed on or before 31.03.2024. However, the AO passed the fresh assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act on 26.04.2024, which is 26 days beyond the prescribed statutory deadline of 31.03.2024. The assessment order is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation and is null and void. In this regard, he submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that assessee had raised an additional ground before the Ld. CIT(A) in the second round of proceedings, challenging the validity of the assessment order on the ground of limitation, which was admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) for due adjudication. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) in para 7 to 7.2 on page 9 of its....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submitted that the decision of Odeon Builders Pvt Ltd was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of the Revenue's SLP (c) Diary NO. 11792/2018 on 1st May 2018 16. He further placed reliance on the following decisions:- * Delhi High Court in the case of the CIT- International Taxation-3 v. Qualcomm Incorporated, 2024 (2) TMI 1046, Dated: - 16-2-2024, Further, the decision of Qualcomm Incorporated was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissal of the Revenue's SLP No.- Special Leave Petition (Civil) 2469 of 2026 @ Diary No(s). 25698/2025, 2026 (1) TMI 763 - SC Order (LB)- Dated:- January 13, 2026. * Huawei Telecommunications India Company Pvt Ltd versus ACIT, CC-2 dated 28.11.2024 applying the judgement of Odeon Builders Pvt Ltd. Relevant para 18 and 19. * Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS INDIAN SUGAR EXIM CORPORATION LTD. 2019 (7) TMI 1225 Dated: 5 - 22-7-2019 applying the ratio of Odeon Builders Pvt Ltd. The above decision of INDIAN SUGAR EXIM CORPORATION LTD has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dismissal of revenue's SLP diary no. 1080/2020 Dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 153 of the Act. He essentially relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 21. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. First, we shall deal with the limitation issue, we observed that the order of ITAT was handed over to the Ld DR after the pronouncement of the order by the registry, this is confirmed by the registry on the application filed by the assessee under RTI, the relevant confirmation under RTI is place on record. In our considered view, as per the provisions of section 153(6) of the Act, the period of limitation to pass the assessment order of 12 months commences from the date of receipt or passes the impugned order to the AO by the PCCIT or CCIT or PCIT or CIT. In the given case, the same was handed over to the Department Representative instead of dispatching the order to the above-mentioned officials as a special case by the ITAT registry. The relevance as per the provisions is that the receipt of order by the above-mentioned officials of the income tax department, since in the given case the order was delivered to the Ld DR, the relevant date of handing over of the above said order to the above said officials are relevant, not the ....