TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 288X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 153(1)(b) of the Act - Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any perversity either in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal or from the original record, which was summoned by this Court – Decided against the Revenue. - D.B. IT Appeal No. 46 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2013 - NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND Arun Bhansali, JJ. For the Appellant : K.K. Bissa. For the Respondent : Anjay Kothari. ORDER:- By The Court This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') has been filed by the Department aggrieved against the order dated 10.05.2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed and it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an income of Rs.20,62,263/-, which was again challenged by the assessee before the CIT(A), who decided the same vide order dated 21.08.1995. The assessee approached the Tribunal against the orders of the CIT(A) i.e. 09.01.1990 and 21.08.1995. 4. Before the CIT(A), a preliminary objection was raised by the assessee that the assessment in question has become barred by limitation and the same was beyond the time available under the provisions of Section 153(1)(a) of the Act; it was, inter alia, submitted that the so called notice dated 17.03.1988 for initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was in fact served on one Mr. S.K. Khandelwal on 10.03.1989 and not on 17.03.1988 as the said Mr. Khandelwal was not at Jod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e particulars of income. In the instant case, the notice was handed over to Shri U.C. Jain, the then counsel for the assessee on 13.3.89 and the time available for completion of the assessment was upto 31.3.88. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the aforesaid case, the assessment order for A.Y. 1985-86 passed on 31.3.89 was barred by limitation." The Tribunal thereafter dealing with the issue of limitation from another angle held thus: "27. In the instant case also, at the time of issuing the notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act dated 21.03.88 there was no order made u/s 143 (3) which, in fact, was passed on 31.3.89. Therefore, the show cause notice dated 17.3.88 issued by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and consequently levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the provisions of Sec. 153(1) (b) were not applicable to the facts of the present case." Though the notice relied upon by the Department is dated 17.03.88 but as by the said notice the assessee was called upon to reply by 21.03.88, it appears the Tribunal has taken the date of notice as 21.03.88. 7. Consequently, as noticed above, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessment framed by the AO on 31.03.1989 was barred by limitation and in view of its finding on the issue of limitation did not give any finding on the remaining grounds raised by the assessee on merits and, consequently, both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which the income was first assessable; where such A.Y. is an A.Y. commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1969; or (b) the expiry of eight year from the end of the A.Y. in which the income was first assessable, in case falling withing clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271." 11. From the above provisions, it would be clear that the assessment can be completed within two years from the end of Assessment Year ('A.Y.'), in which, the income was first assessable where such A.Y. is an A.Y. commencing on or after 01st day of April, 1969 and the time for completing the assessment was eight years from the end of A.Y. in case falling within Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271 of the Act. 12. In the present case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
