Uttarakhand HC dismisses
Hyundai's objections, holds that the appeal filed by
Revenue against ITAT ruling is within the time-limit prescribed u/s.
260A ; Hyundai contended based on RTI records that while the
Tribunal order had been served on CIT's office in
September, 2009, the tax department filed the appeal in HC only in July
2011, thereby resulting in the Revenue appeal being barred by limitation;
HC observes contradiction in the stand taken by assessee, where it is
stated at one place that the Tribunal order was 'dispatched' on
September 9, 2009 while at another place it is contended that the order
was 'served' on September 9; Accepting tax department's submission
that the order copy was not received on the said date, i.e. September
9, 2009 but only in March, 2011, HC goes on to observe
that “the respondent/assessee has not, apparently, made any efforts to
ascertain whether the impugned order, which is alleged to have been dispatched
on 09.9.2009, has actually been served, which could have been done by way of
making queries with the post-office.”; HC interprets ‘receipt’ u/s. 260A
to hold that “receipt is to be understood as meaning that there is a
duty also on the Tribunal to communicate the order to the person, who is
entitled to lodge the appeal.”; HC further rejects assessee's arguments
that sought to impute knowledge of the ITAT order on the
part of Revenue by virtue of it being a party to various writ
petitions & Sec. 263 proceedings, remarks that “it would not be
an actual accrual of cause of action to file an appeal as provided under law,
unless received.”; Also rejects assessee’s reliance on CBDT circular
of August, 2011, clarifies that the CBDT circular only contemplates that there
is duty to intimate the Tribunal about the change of jurisdiction if there
is one during the pendency of the appeal, which fact per se is not
established, moreover observes that it is not clear as to whether Circular
obliges the authority to follow it:HC
No comments:
Post a Comment