Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (4) TMI 388

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3, 2006 and the case did not get time barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) annulled the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that it was time barred. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer. Held that- the tribunal had no power to bypass the provision of limitation by treating the assessment made beyond limitation as bonafide mistake on the part of the Assessing Officer and liable to be condoned. The assessment order was barred by limitation. - 28 of 2006 and 4 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 22-4-2010 - DHIRENDRA MISHRA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA JJ Neelabh Dubey for the appellant in TC No. 28 of 2006 and respondent in T.C. No. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessment under section 158BD stood extended by a period of 60 days. Since the present Assessing Officer started proceedings on December 5, 2005, limitation stood extended up to February 3, 2006 and the case did not get time-barred in view of the provisions of section 129 of the Act. However, on appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) after considering the provisions of section 158BE and section 129 of the Act annulled the order of the Assessing Officer by declaring the order as time-barred. 5. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal even after arriving at a conclusion that assessment in dispute is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e appellant on January 8, 2004. The period of limitation for completion of block assessment in the case of other persons referred to in section 158BD as per clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 158BE is two years from the end of the month in which notice under section 158BD is served on such other person. Thus, assessment of the appellant under Chapter XIV-B should have been completed by January 31, 2006 whereas assessment was completed on February 2, 2006. The Appellate Commissioner after elaborately considering the facts of the case and the provisions of law held that no hearing had taken place prior to December 22, 2005, the date new incumbent had taken over charge, therefore, there is no question of rehearing of the case. The matter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... passed in the cases of block assessment under section 158BD beyond the period prescribed under section 158BE and the provisions of limitation are to be construed strictly, as the appellant is vested with the valuable right not to be assessed and the same cannot be taken away without any express provisions of law and equitable considerations cannot govern cases of limitation. The Tri-bunal had no power under the Act to bypass the provisions of limitation by treating the assessment made beyond limitation as bona fide mistake and liable to be condoned. 9. On the other hand, Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that both the forums below have committed an error of law by arriving at a conclusion that the order of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve held that no hearing had taken place prior to December 22, 2005 and by that date the new incumbent had already taken over charge. 13. From a bare reading of section 129 of the Act, it is clear that the same is attracted only when some proceeding had taken place in the past and the same are to be continued by new incumbent. In such circumstances, the assessee may demand for reopening of the previous proceeding or any part thereof and he may also demand for rehearing before the order of assessment is passed against him by the new incumbent. In view of the fact that no hearing had taken place before the new incumbent had taken over the charge, the question of any demand for reopening of the case or rehearing by the assessee does not arise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates