Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 513
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3 - Appellant
Versus
Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. - Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No.680 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.6580 of 2021
Decided On : 12-05-2023
For the Parties : Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Alka Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh Ii, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Choursia, Adv. Ms. Niranjna Singh, Adv. Mr. S A Haseeb, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Prahlad Singh, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Anshul Kumar Mittal, Adv. Mr. Priyadarshi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pratap Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv. Mr. Akhil Abraham Roy, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. For M/s K.J. John & Co. AOR Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Udit Naresh, Adv. Mr. Anant Mann, Adv. Mr. Aditeya Bali, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Aggarwal, Adv.
Prayers seeking clarification may be considered as a form of review, requiring detailed consideration before being entertained by the court.
Headnote:- Revenue - Section 150(2) - The court discussed the waiver of limitation as stipulated in section 150(2) and its applicability to fresh proceedings for reassessment. The court emphasized that the prayers sought by the Revenue were in the form of a review, requiring detailed consideration, and therefore not entertained. The court directed the Revenue to file an appropriate review application for the relief sought.
Fact of the Case:
The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification on the waiver of limitation under section 150(2) for reassessment proceedings.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prayers sought by the Revenue were in the form of a review, which required detailed consideration and therefore not entertained. The Revenue was directed to file an appropriate review application for the relief sought. ISSUES Clarification on waiver of limitation under section 150(2) for reassessment proceedings.Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that the present application seeking clarification was in the form of a review and not entertained without detailed consideration. It directed the Revenue to file an appropriate review application for the relief sought. FINAL DECISION The present application was not entertained, and the Revenue was directed to file an appropriate review application for the relief sought.JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Present Miscellaneous Application has been preferred by the Revenue seeking following prayers:
“(a) This Hon’ble Court may clarify that the waiver of limitation as stipulated in section 150(2) is to be read in respect of the date of issue of notice for reassessment under section 148 (i.e.) if as on the date the assessment under section 153A or section 153C was passed, a notice under section 148 could have been issued as per the law then in force, then fresh proceedings for reassessment of such income not arising from the incriminating material found in search can now be initiated pursuant to the findings of this Hon’ble Court in the present appeals/application and may further clarify as follows:
(i) That the findings in para 11 and 14 would apply to all the proceedings pending in all the forums including before this Hon’ble Court.
(ii) That even though the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in respect of assessments passed under 153A and 153C, in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, in respect of such income which was found to have escaped assessment other than through incriminating material, the assessing officers would be entitled to reassess such income in terms of Section 147/148 read with section 150.
(iii) That the Assessing Officer, may if found necessary initiate fresh proceedings within 60 days from date of disposal of this application following the procedure stipulated in section 147-151 of the Act as is in force now.”
2. Having gone through the averments made in the application and the prayers, we are of the opinion that the prayers sought can be said to be in the form of review which requires detail consideration at length looking into the importance of the matter. Therefore, the present application in the form of clarification is not entertained and we relegate the Revenue to file an appropriate review application for the relief sought in the present application and as and when such review application is filed the same can be heard in the open court.
3. In view of the above and without further entering into the merits of the application and/or expressing anything on merits on the prayers sought in the present application, the present application is not entertained and we relegate the Revenue to file an appropriate review application seeking the reliefs which are sought in the present application and as and when such review application is filed the same be heard and decided and disposed of in the open court.
At the cost of repetition, we observe that as we have not entered into the merits of the present application and we relegate the Revenue to file an appropriate review application, the review application be decided and disposed of in accordance with law and on its own merits.
With this present application stands disposed of.
