Itta/439/2013 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. M/S Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A. No. 439 of 2013 DATED:19.9.2013 Between:Commissioner of Income Tax-III,Hyderabad. … Appellant And M/s. Sree Rayalaseema Green Energy Limited,Kurnool District. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU I.T.T.A. No. 439 of 2013 JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is preferred against the judgment and orderdated 31.01.2013 (wrongly mentioned as 2031) in relation tothe block assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02 and the sameis sought to be admitted on the following suggested question oflaw: A)In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’bleTribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in annulling the order under Section263 of the Act holding that the order is barred by limitation withoutidentifying that the present order under Section 263 of the Act is secondrevisionary order revising the order passed by the Assessing Officerunder Section 158BC read with Section 263 of the Act dated29.12.2006 and as such the period of limitation under Section 263 ofthe Act expired on 31.03.2009 ?Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in annulling the order under Section263 of the Act holding that the order is barred by limitation withoutidentifying that the present order under Section 263 of the Act is secondrevisionary order revising the order passed by the Assessing Officerunder Section 158BC read with Section 263 of the Act dated29.12.2006 and as such the period of limitation under Section 263 ofthe Act expired on 31.03.2009 ? Therefore, the only point is whether the learned Tribunalwas justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assesseeannulling the order under Section 263 of the Act holding thesame as barred by limitation. The learned Tribunal hasrecorded the fact finding while computing the period oflimitation, which is as follows: “Even if we consider the original assessment orderdated 26.3.2004, there is no time available to the CIT to passthis order u/s. 263, dated 30.3.2009 as the CIT required topass the order u/s. 263 within two years from the end of thefinancial year in which the order sought to be revised waspassed. In this case the original assessment order waspassed on 29.3.2004. In other words, he has to pass therevisional order u/s. 263 of the Act by 31[st] March, 2006 andthe present order u/s. 263 was passed on 30.3.2009 by theCIT, which is time barred.” We are of the view that the aforesaid computation of timeis absolutely correct. There is no mistake in the impugnedjudgment and order of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, we donot find any reason to admit the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ ______________ K.C. BHANU, J 19.9.2013 PNB