By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
CIT vs. Odeon Builders P. Ltd.; 393 ITR 27 (Del)(FB):
On 29/10/2014, the Tribunal had passed a common order in a
batch of 115 cases. A certified copy thereof was received in the office of the
CIT, Ghaziabad on 19/12/2014 and in the office of the Principal Commissioner
Delhi on 28/04/2015. The Department filed an appeal before the High Court on
25/08/2015. Assessee contended that the appeal was filed beyond the limitation
period. The Department explained that at the time the appeals were heard by the
Tribunal, the Commissioner, Ghaziabad was the concerned Commissioner and pursuant
to certain administrative orders issued by the Department, the jurisdiction
relating to the assessee was transferred to the Commissioner, Delhi. The
certified copy was received by the Commissioner, Delhi on 28/04/2015 and the
Commissioner, Delhi thereafter took a decision regarding filing of appeals.
Another appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 16/05/2014 was filed by
the Department in the High Court on 14/01/2015. The assessee contended that in
accordance with the stamp borne on the certified copy of the order, the Copy of
the order was available with the Commissioner (Judicial) on July 23, 2014 and
with the Commissioner (Central) on July 25, 2014 and therefore, the appeal
which was filed on January 14, 2015 was beyond 120 days from the date of
receipt of the certified copy. The Department contended that limitation would
start to run only from the date of service of the order of the Tribunal on the
concerned Commissioner having jurisdiction over the assessee.
The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court held as under:
“i) The word “received”
occurring in section 260A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, (hereinafter for the
sake of brevity referred to as the “Act”) 1961 would mean received by
any of the named officers of the Department, including the Commissioner
(Judicial). The provision names four particular officers, i.e., the Principal
Commissioner, Commissioner, Principal Chief Commissioner, and Chief
Commissioner of Income Tax. These were the only designated officers who could
receive a copy of the order. In the absence of a qualifying prefix “concerned”,
the receipt of a copy of the order of the Tribunal by any of those officers in
the Department including the Commissioner (Judicial), would trigger the period
of limitation.
ii) The statute was not
concerned with the internal arrangements that the Department might make by
changing the jurisdiction of its officers. It was for the officer of the
Department who first received a copy of the Tribunal’s order to reach in time
to the officer who was to take a decision regarding the filing of an appeal.
iii) Where there was a
common order of the Tribunal covering the several appeals, limitation would
begin to run when a certified copy was received first by either the
Commissioner (Judicial) or one of the officers of the Department and not only
when the Commissioner “concerned” receives it. When the same Commissioner had
jurisdiction for more than one assessee, the limitation would begin to run for
all from earliest of the dates when the Departmental representative of the
Commissioner (Judicial) or any Commissioner first receives the order in any of
the cases forming part of the batch disposed by the common order.
iv) If there were four
separate orders passed, the limitation would begin to run when such separate
orders are received first by any officer of the Department.
v) Instructions issued
by the Department for its administrative convenience could not alter the time
when limitation would begin to run u/s.260A(2)(a) of the Act. Administrative
instructions are for the administrative convenience of the Department and would
not override the statute, in particular section 260A(2)(a) of the Act.”
