(Common Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench ‘D’, dated 07.05.2012 in ITA Nos. 1919(Mds) of 2009, 1920 (Mds) of 2009, 1921 (Mds) of 2009, 1922 (Mds) of 2009, 1923 (Mds) of 2009, 1924 (Mds) of 2009 and 1925 (Mds) of 2009 for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002 – 03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08.)

Common Judgment:

Dr. Anita Sumanth J.

1. These are Tax Case (Appeals) filed for assessment years (AY) 2001-02 to 2007-08 challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’/’Tribunal’) in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) on 07.05.2012.

2. The substantial questions of law that have been admitted on 28.02.2013 are as follows:

               ‘1. Whether the Tribunal has committed an error of law by holding the orders of assessments dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- II, Coimbatore, for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08 as merely irregular and hence capable of being resuscitated?

               2. Whether the Tribunal could in the exercise of its appellate powers issue directions which defeat the bar of limitation found in the first proviso to Section 153B(1) for making an assessment under Section 153C of the Act?

               3. Whether the Tribunal could have ignored the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of connected parties wherein assessments had either been annulled totally, or directions issued to the assessing officer having valid jurisdiction to take action, subject to limitation?’

3. We have heard the submissions of Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.Mahalingam, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/department.

4. The short point on which we are inclined to dispose these appeals is that, despite the appeals being of 2012 vintage (order of the Tribunal is dated 07.05.2012), wherein the matters have been remitted to the files of the Assessing Authority for i) determination of jurisdiction and ii) framing of assessments under Section 143(3) read with Section 153 afresh, no action has been taken by the Department till date.

5. We record the above in light of instructions conveyed by Mr.Balaji that, to the best of the information received from counsel/Chartered Accountants who were appearing for the assessee over the years, the assessee has not received any notice from the Department for initiation of consequential action pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 07.05.2012.

6. We had also granted sufficient opportunities to Mr.Mahalingam (on 03.12.2025, 17.12.2025 and 18.12.2025) to confirm as to whether any consequential action has been taken. In fact, in order dated 18.12.2025, we had made it clear that such opportunity was being extended as a final chance. Mr.Mahalingam has also been fair enough to submit today that no any information regarding consequential action pursuant to the impugned order of the Tribunal, is available on record.

7. Since a period of 13 years has elapsed since the order of the Tribunal setting aside the assessments to be re-done, we are of the view that nothing survives at this juncture. Per the provisions of Section 153 (2A) of the Act, a fresh order of assessment pursuant to an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act setting aside or cancelling the order of assessment, should be made before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the order under Section 254 had been received by the Chief Commissioner/Commissioner.

8. In the present case, the order is passed in May, 2012 and should have been received before 31.03.2013. Hence, the period of one year as provided under Section 153(2A) has expired on 31.03.2014. Since the limitation for passing of consequential orders has long passed, there is nothing to be served in deciding substantial questions of law in a stale matter.

9. Incidentally, common legal issues arose in the case of three other assessees who were part of the same group and came up for consideration before the Tribunal in I.T.A.Nos.1740 to 1746 (Mds)/2009 (in the case of P.Sundararaj HUF), I.T.A.Nos.1731 to 1737 (Mds)/2009 (in the case of P.Sukumar HUF) and I.T.A.Nos.61 to 67 (Mds)/2010 (in the case of P.Jeevarathinam).

10. In the case of P.Sundararaj HUF and P.Sukumar HUF, the assessments were quashed as ultravires with the observation that the Department was at liberty to proceed with further necessary action, if the law so permitted, by the Assessing Officer having valid jurisdiction in the matter.

11. Mr.Mahalingam informs the Court that as against the above order, the Department had filed appeals in T.C.(A)Nos.910 to 915 of 2013 in the case of P.Sundararaj HUF, that came to be dismissed as withdrawn on account of low tax effect on 26.10.2018. Submission dated 19.12.2025 has been filed by him to this effect, that is extracted below:

               SUBMISSION BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT

               I, V. Mahalingam, Senior Standing Counsel of the Income Tax Department submits that the above said Appeal came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Court today(19.12.2024)

               I submit that the Department has informed me that the Appeal Nos. TCA No. 910 to 915 of 2013 CIT Vs. P.Sundarraj were already withdrawn by the Department on 26.10.2018 and thereby these appeals were disposed by this Hon’ble Court and I hereby confirm the same.

12. In the case of P.Jeevarathinam, the assessments were quashed simplicitor, and according to Mr.Mahalingam, no appeals have been filed by the Department challenging the same.

13. Hence, even on the ground of uniformity in approach, we are of the view that since the appeals in the case of P.Sundaraj (HUF), Sukumar and Jeevarathinam, assessees in the same group who have suffered similar orders of assessment, the Department has taken a particular stand, there is no necessity to take a deviant view in the present case.

14. Hence, these Tax Case (Appeals) are disposed confirming the order of the Tribunal dated 07.05.2012, though returning the substantial questions of law as unanswered. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.