TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer and the assessment on that return. - It is not necessary to reiterate the reasons given by us in the earlier order in support of the view we have taken therein. Suffice it to say that, we are not satisfied that we have committed any mistake in refusing to entertain the application made by the applicant under section 245Q of the Act on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. - Application dismissed. - A.A.R. No.1009 of 2010 Application No.1 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 15-11-2011 - Shri Mr. P.K.Balasubramanyan Shri Mr. V.K. ShridharJJ. Present for the applicant Mr. N. Venkataraman, Sr. Advocate Mr. Satish Aggarwal, FCA Mr. Akil Sambhar Mr. Nageswar Rao, Advocate Present for the Department Mr. Vivek Kuma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to argue the matter as if he were arguing an appeal against our order dated 25.8.2011, that is sought to be rectified. In our order we had held that the applicant having filed a return of income for the relevant year even before filing the application under section 245Q of the Act, it must be taken that the question that is posed before us for a ruling was already pending before the Assessing Officer. Learned Counsel contends that merely because the applicant had filed a return of income before he approached this authority that would not mean that the question raised in the application before the Authority was already pending before the Assessing Officer within the meaning of clause (i) of the proviso to section 245R(2) of the Act. Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration by that other Authority. As regards the passage from the Hand Book relied on, this Hand Book itself says that it should not be construed as an exhaustive statement of law. Even otherwise, what is stated in the Hand Book cannot control the rendering of a decision with reference to the relevant provisions. We also find on a reference to the passage relied on, that it nowhere states that on a return being filed, the question cannot be said to be pending. What was referred to was an issuance of a notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Section 142 itself covers three different situations and one of them is to call upon a person to file a return of income if he had not filed a return within the time allowed under section 139(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he return already filed by the applicant? After all, what we have held in our order dated 25.8.2011 is that once the return was filed by the applicant, the question that is raised before us, has come within the purview of the Assessing Officer and the assessment on that return. Counsel relied on section 153 of the Act and clauses (vi)(vii)of explanation 1 thereto to point out that the period of pendency of an application before us would stand excluded while computing the period of limitation for completing the assessment and that would show that the filing of an application for advance ruling even while a return had been filed, is contemplated by the statute, so long as the question raised is not specifically raised before the Assessing O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
