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

2012 (7) TMI 515

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct of 2007 also added the second proviso to section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on June 1, 2007, which in fact, enlarged the period of limitation by another one year with effect from March 31, 2008, i.e., up to March 31, 2009, for passing the assessment order - aforesaid provision provided a period of one additional year for completing the assessment, if the proceedings before the Settlement Commission abated under section 245HA - all assessment proceedings in pursuance of the search and seizure conducted by the Income-tax Department on February 9, 2000, are a nullity and are liable to be set aside - jewellery which finds mention in the panchnama dated February 9, 2000, is liable to be released forthwith along with two bank guarante .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 24 lakhs and after deposit of the said amount, jewellery worth Rs. 23,92,482 kept in box Nos. 1 to 7 as per panchnama dated February 9, 2000, was released. On June 16, 2004, the petitioner made another application before the Settlement Commission for release of jewellery kept in box Nos. 8 to 10 and offered to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs. On April 26, 2007, the Settlement Commission ordered for release of jewellery on furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 20 lakhs, in response to which, the petitioner had furnished one Bank guarantee of Rs. 11,60,000 and the other of Rs. 8 lakhs. 6. When the proceedings were pending before the Settlement Commission, an amendment was incorporated in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... essments, the Finance Act of 2007 also added the second proviso to section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on June 1, 2007, which in fact, enlarged the period of limitation by another one year with effect from March 31, 2008, i.e., up to March 31, 2009, for passing the assessment order. 10. The aforesaid provision provided a period of one additional year for completing the assessment, if the proceedings before the Settlement Commission abated under section 245HA. 11. In view of the aforesaid provision, the assessing authority was obliged to pass the assessment order under section 158BC on the basis of the return filed on July 18, 2001, in view of the second proviso to section 153(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by March 31, 2009 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Tribunal is correct when it stated that the effect of holding that the assessment was barred by time is that all further proceedings pursuant to the said decision would be infructuous. The Income-tax Officer gets jurisdiction to pass an assessment order if it is within limitation. If the assessment is barred by time, then any decision on the merits would be of no con- sequence, and for the same reason, the decision, on the merits, by the appellate authorities would also be of no consequence and would have to be ignored. This is exactly what the Tribunal has observed in the impugned order. For, if the assessment is barred by time, no effect can be given to the other decision on the merits. If, however, the reference of the Department .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... propriate to observe that the proceedings before the Settlement Commission abated by virtue of an amendment in the Finance Act, 2007, and the amendment so brought on record on the statute book is presumed to be known to all concerned and particularly the Revenue. There was no occasion for the Settlement Commission to pass any order of abatement, as the abatement was by operation of law nor was there any occasion for the assessee to communicate the said fact to the Assessing Officer, though he might have done so, but it was the obligation of the Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order within the statutory period. 20. Lack of knowledge on the part of the Assessing Officer could never be a good ground for extending the period of lim .....

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