Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn More
Reported :
52 Revision : S. 263 of
Income-tax Act, 1961 Limitation : A.Y. 2004-05 : Reopening of assessment on
certain items and reassessment completed : Revision in respect of other items
u/s.263 : Period of limitation to be counted from the original assessment.
[Ashoka Buildcom Ltd. v.
ACIT, 191 Taxman 29 (Bom.)]
For the A.Y. 2004-05 the
original assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by an
order dated 27-12-2006. Subsequently the assessment was reopened by issuing a
notice u/s. 148, dated 6-3-2007 on the basis that the benefit u/s.72A had been
wrongly allowed to the assessee. Reassessment was completed by an order u/s.147
dated 27-12-2007 withdrawing the benefit given to the assessee u/s.72A of the
Act. Thereafter, on 30-4-2009 the Commissioner issued notice u/s.263 proposing
to revise the assessment order dated 27-12-2007.
The assessee filed writ
petition and challenged the notice on the ground that what is sought to be
revised is the original assessment order dated 27-12-2006 and not the
reassessment order dated 27-12-2007 and accordingly the notice u/s.263, dated
30-4-2009 is beyond the period of limitation and hence invalid. The Bombay High
Court allowed the petition, quashed the notice and held as under :
“(i) While seeking to
exercise his jurisdiction u/s. 263, the Commissioner did not find any error
in the order of reassessment dated 27-12-2007 as regards the disallowance of
the assessee’s claim on the basis of the provisions of S. 72A. The impugned
notice adverted to issues which, as a matter of fact, did not form either
the subject-matter of the notice that was issued u/s.148 on 6-3-2007, nor
the order of reassessment thereupon which was passed on
27-12-2007. The jurisdiction u/s.263 was sought to be exercised with
reference to issues which were unrelated to the grounds on which the
original assessment was reopened and reassessment was made.
(ii) Ss.(2) of S. 263
stipulates that no order shall be made U/ss.(1) after the expiry of two
years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be
revised was passed. That period of two years from the end of the financial
year in which the original order of assessment dated 27-12-2006 was passed,
had expired on 31-3-2009. Hence, the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction
in respect of the original order of reassessment was barred by limitation.
(iii)
Where an assessment has been reopened u/s. 147 in relation to a particular
ground or in relation to certain specified grounds and subsequent to the
passing of the order of reassessment, the jurisdiction u/s.263 is sought to
be exercised with reference to issues which did not form the subject of the
reopening of the assessment or the order of reassessment, the period of
limitation provided for in Ss.(2) of S. 263 would commence from the date of
the order of assessment and not from the date on which the order reopening
the
reassessment has been passed.
(iv) The submission of
the Revenue was that when several issues are dealt with in the original
order of assessment and only one or more of them are dealt with in the order
of reassessment passed after the assessment has been reopened, the remaining
issues must be deemed to have been dealt with in the order of reassessment.
Hence, it had been urged that the omission of the Assessing Officer, while
making an order of reassessment, to deal with those issues u/s. 143(3), read
with S. 147, constituted an error which could be revised in exercise of the
jurisdiction u/s.263. The submission could neither be accepted as a matter
of first principle, based on a plain reading of the provisions of S. 147 and
S. 263, nor was it sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court.
(v) For those reasons,
the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction u/s.263 was barred by
limitation.”
