The Calcutta High Court observed that the limitation was necessarily begun to run from the date of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961.
Facts
The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata –1 under Section 263 of the Act was just and proper, more so when the exercise of jurisdiction under the said provision was done for the second time.
Decision
The division bench of the Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the period of limitation has to run from the date of assessment as framed under Section 143(3) dated 26.12.2016, that is at the end of the financial year, 31.03.2017. Therefore, it held that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is hopelessly barred by limitation.
The bench observed that the Tribunal also took note of the decision of Supreme Court in CIT Vs.ARBUDA MILLS, wherein it was held that jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Act is sought to be exercised with reference to an issue which is covered by the original order of assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, which does not form the subject matter of the reassessment. The limitation was necessarily begun to run from the date of order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act.
The bench held that the order passed by the learned Tribunal had been passed taking note of the correct legal position and referring to the relevant decision and the said order does not call for any interference.
Case title: Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Kolkata Vs M/S K M Khadim And Co
Citation: ITAT/148/2023
