TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was prospective. Thus appeal of revenue for the relevant A/Y is dismissed. - ITA No.582/2011, ITA No.670/2011, ITA No.627/2011, TA No.673/2011 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2011 - MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA, JJ. For Appellant: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. These four appeals are directed against a common order dated 6th August, 2010 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT for short). Vide this common order, four cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as by revenue against the order dated 27th April, 2007 of CIT (A) for the block period 1st April, 1989 to 22nd December, 1999 under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act ( the Act for short) were disposed of against revenue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeals of the assessee on both these legal grounds. The Tribunal vide the impugned order maintained the orders passed by CIT (A) on both the grounds. The present appeals are filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal. 3. While holding that the panchnama of 22nd December 1999 was only a panchnama relating to search and was relevant for computing limitation under Section 158BC (b) of the Act and that being so, the assessment as done on 27th June, 2003 was time-barred, the Tribunal reasoned in following terms: 8. In the instant case before us, there is no dispute with regard to the dates of search and various panchnamas prepared on 22.12.1999, 14.1.2000 and 19.12.2000. The examination of the panchnama placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal as well as by CIT(A) on the above issue. 5. With regard to the issue relating to suo motu grant of extension of time for special audit under Section 142(2C) of the Act by the AO, the Tribunal reasoned as follows: 11. In view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove by referring to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd., the issue is now covered in favour of assessee in view of the amendment carried out to Section 142(2A) and the CBDT Circular No.I dated 27.3.2009. These amendments and Circular were elaborately considered in the case of Bishan Saroop Ram Kishan Agro Pvt. Ltd by the Delhi Tribunal in its order dated 18.9.2009, wherein it was held that before 1.4.2008 i.e. before amendment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the words suo motu have been added by way of an amendment with effect from 01.04.2008 would show the legislative intention in the proviso as existed before the amendment which is that the Assessing Officer prior to amendment had no power to extend the period of furnishing audit report of his own. 19. It was to rationalize the said proviso that the word suo motu came to be added by way of amendment with effect from 1st April 2008. As per Clause 27.3 of the Circular dated 27th March, 2009 while the Assessing Officer shall continue to have the power to grant extension on an application made in this behalf by the Assessee, he could also grant extension of his own when there are good and sufficient reasons for such extension. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from the memorandum and the circular noted above, we are not persuaded to agree with the interpretation as given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jagjit Sugar Mills Company Limited (supra). Further in view of our above discussion, it comes to be concluded that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessment Order was barred by limitation. That being so, we answer Question No.1 in affirmative in favour of the Assessee and against the revenue. 21. In view of foregoing discussion that the amendment whereby the word suo motu‟ were inserted in sub section (2C) of Section 142 of the Act was to be applicable with effect from 1st April, 2008 only, the amendment cannot be said to be clarificatory or retrospecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
