C.I.T. Kolkata-III v. M/s. Teesta Valey Corpn. Ltd - 2014-LL-0911-30

Citation	2014-LL-0911-30
Appellant Name	C.I.T. Kolkata-III
Respondent Name	M/s. Teesta Valey Corpn. Ltd.
Court	HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	11/09/2014
Assessment Year	1995-96
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	barred by limitation
Bot Summary:	Mr. Ranjan Sinha, Advocate The Court : This appeal has been filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act by the appellant/revenue against the order dated 30th May, 2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal A Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 2248/Kol/2004 for the assessment year 1995-96 on the following questions : a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the C.I.T.(A) that proceeding under section 147 was barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Section 150MM of the Income Tax Act. B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in relying on the decision of Spencers Hotels Ltd. vs. D.C.I.T. reported in 263 I.T.R. 263 and in the case of S.Sankar Reddy reported in 92 I.T.D. 84 and thereby holding that the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O. is barred by limitation We find that the learned Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue had held as under: 2 It is found from the orders that the Assessment order for the assessment year 1996-97 was passed on 3rd September, 2002. 148 for the assessment year 1995-96 was issued on 7th April, 2003. The assessment for the assessment year 1995-96 could be reopened up to March, 2002. When the CIT(A) gave a direction while deciding the appeal for the assessment year 1996-97 on 03.09.2002 there was no time for reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 1995-96. In view of the clear provisions of section 150(2) of the AO could not have reopened the assessment for the assessment year 1005-96 on 07.04.2003. In view of the clear finding by the Tribunal, the order under challenge requires no interference.

ORDER SHEET IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No. 449 of 2005 C.I.T. KOLKATA III Versus M/S. TEESTA VALEY CORPN. LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 11th September, 2014. Mr. Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Court : This appeal has been filed under section 260A of Income Tax Act by appellant/revenue against order dated 30th May, 2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 2248/Kol/2004 for assessment year 1995-96 on following questions : a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in upholding order of C.I.T.(A) that proceeding under section 147 was barred by limitation in view of provisions of Section 150MM of Income Tax Act. b) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in relying on decision of Spencers Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. D.C.I.T. reported in 263 I.T.R. 263 and in case of S.Sankar Reddy reported in 92 I.T.D. 84 and thereby holding that assumption of jurisdiction by A.O. is barred by limitation ? We find that learned Tribunal while dismissing appeal filed by revenue had held as under: 2 It is found from orders that Assessment order for assessment year 1996-97 was passed on 3rd September, 2002. notice u/s. 148 for assessment year 1995-96 was issued on 7th April, 2003. assessment for assessment year 1995-96 could be reopened up to March, 2002. When CIT(A) gave direction while deciding appeal for assessment year 1996-97 on 03.09.2002 there was no time for reopening of assessment for assessment year 1995-96. In view of clear provisions of section 150(2) of AO could not have reopened assessment for assessment year 1005-96 on 07.04.2003. Basing on above findings and relying on decision of Spencers Hotels P. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 263 ITR 263 and decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in case of S. Sankar Reddy reported in 92 ITD 84 (Hyderabad) we are of considered opinion that assumption of jurisdiction by A.O. u/s. 147 is barred by limitation . In view of clear finding by Tribunal, order under challenge requires no interference. Hence, appeal is dismissed. (SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) km AR(CR) C.I.T. Kolkata-III v. M/s. Teesta Valey Corpn. Ltd

Metadata

Judgment