9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Income-tax Appeal bearing IT (SS) A No. 69/(Cal.) of 1997 for the block-period between 1-4-1985 and 12-2-1996. 2. The main point involved in the aforesaid appeal was whether the addition of Rs. 39,78,315 and a further sum of Rs. 20 lakh based on alleged bogus purchase could be made in block assessment notwithstanding the fact that those findings were based on no material recovered from search and seizure. 3. This Court held that the aforesaid findings were not based on any material unearthed on search and seizure and thus, was not liable to be assessed on the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act but should be subject to regular assessment. 4. We arrived at the aforesaid findings while answering the first questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a direction to that effect is given by this Court while disposing of an appeal under section 260A of the Act notwithstanding the fact that period of limitation for initiating fresh assessment has since become barred by time. Mr. Dutt tried to convince us that the provision contained in section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply in such circumstances and thus, taking advantage of such observation, his client can now initiate fresh proceeding as in the earlier proceeding, the endeavour of the Assessing Officer to treat the transactions under block assessment failed for want of jurisdiction or on similar grounds as specified in section 14 of the Limitation Act. 7. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Income-tax Act, there is no scope of applying the provisions of the Limitation Act as would appear from the fact that in section 260A itself, the power of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been incorporated by the Legislature by introducing sub-section (2A) with effect from 1-4-2010 only and if the Limitation Act of its own had the application to such an appeal, there was no necessity of incorporation of such a provision in section 260A and that too, with effect from 1-4-2010 and consequently, section 14 of the Limitation Act also cannot be availed of by the Assessing Officer, if under the Income-tax Act, the regular assessment is barred and even the period of limitation for reopening the regular assessment had expired. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 96 of the Code. Similarly, the provision contained in Order 41 Rule 3A does not confer the power of condonation of delay. It was incorporated in the Code by the amendment of 1976 to give effect to the decision of the Privy Council which deprecated the practice prevailing in India of admitting an appeal subject to the objection as to the question whether the same was barred by limitation that might be raised at the time of final hearing by the respondent (Vide object and reasons of such enactment) being quite conscious that the Limitation Act applies in full to an appeal under section 96 of the Code. That the provision of Order 41 Rule 3A of the Code is not the source of power of condonation of delay has been accepted by a Division Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as raised based on section 29 of the Limitation Act, even assuming that section 29(2) would be attracted, what we have to determine is whether the provisions of this section are expressly excluded in the case of reference to the High Court. It was contended before us that the words "expressly excluded" would mean that there must be an express reference made in the special or local law to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of which the operation is to be excluded. In this regard, we have to see the scheme of the special law which here in this case is the Central Excise Act. The nature of the remedy provided therein is such that the Legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observations of the Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court if we apply the principles laid down in the case of Hongo India (P.) Ltd. (supra), to the Income-tax Act, there is no scope of any argument that the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply to the Act. 15. We, therefore, are unable to accept the said decision in the case of R.K. B.K. Ltd. (supra), as a valid precedent. 16. Thus, there is no basis of the apprehension of Mr. Poddar that taking advantage of our above observations, the Assessing Officer will now reopen the regular assessment by taking aid of section 14 of the Limitation Act. 17. We, consequently, dispose of this application by clarifying our above observation that we never intended to direct the Assessing Officer to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
