9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wellery in pursuance of the orders of the Settlement Commission. 3. In short, the facts of the case are that on July 18, 2001, return under section 158BC for the block period April 1, 1989, to February 9, 2000, was filed. On August 17, 2001, the petitioner filed an application under section 245C before the Income-tax Settlement Commission, which was registered as Application No. 7/23/2001/3-IT. 4. The Settlement Commission on January 30, 2002, directed the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Central) to furnish report within 90 days, as required under rule 9 of the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997. The Settlement Commission also directed that the payment be made and accordingly the jewellery be released box ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement Commission by March 31, 2008. 8. The consequence of the aforesaid amendment was that the assessing authority was to complete the assessment in accordance with law, which assessment was to be made by the Assessing Officer by the time prescribed. 9. So long as the matter was pending before the Settlement Commission, the Assessing Officer was not required to pass any assessment order and it was the Settlement Commission who was to take a final decision as per section 245D(4) of the Act, but in view of the fact that by virtue of the amendment in the Finance Act, 2007, on June 1, 2007, the pending proceedings before the Settlement Commission since abated, therefore, on March 31, 2008, in case the orders were not passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a portion of the seized jewellery, but his prayer has not been accepted till date. 13. The short argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer was legally obliged to pass the assessment order by March 31, 2009, in view of the fact that the proceedings registered before the Settlement Commission stood abated on March 31, 2008, in terms of the second proviso to section 153(4) of the Act up to March 31, 2009, and the Assessing Officer having failed to do so, all the proceedings stand vitiated. 14. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment order, the assessment order could not be passed within the period of limitation. 16. We do not find any exception under the Act where the period of limitation for passing the assessment order can be enlarged/enhanced, either by the court or by the assessing authorities. 17. Section 153(1) prescribes limitation for passing an assessment order in matters arising out of proceedings under section 143 or section 144 of the Act. The language used is prohibitive, which restrains/prohibits the Assess- ing Officer to pass an order of assessment, after the period prescribed therein. 18. The second proviso to section 153(4) prescribed an extended period of one year for making the assessment, excluding the period during which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, 2000, is liable to be eleased forthwith along with two bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner for release of a portion of the seized jewellery. The amount of Rs. 24 lakhs also need be refunded to the petitioner. 23. The petitioner is thus, entitled for release of the seized jewellery forth- with and the amount deposited in pursuance of the orders of the Settlement Commission in accordance with the provisions of section 132B(3) of the Act, which reads as under : "132B.(3) Any assets or proceeds thereof which remain after the liabilities referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) are discharged shall be forthwith made over or paid to the persons from whose custody the assets were seized." 24. We, therefore, set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
