2015 (1) TMI 475

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessing Officer for adjudication afresh. We are unable to infer any prejudice that may have been caused to the assessee as the assessee's argument of lack of adequate opportunity was accepted. The assessment order was, therefore, rightly set aside and the matter was remitted to afford adequate opportunity to the assessee to put forth its case. - Decided against the assessee. - Income Tax Appeal No. 101 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 17-11-2014 - Rajive Bhalla And B. S. Walia, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr Pankaj Jain, Sr. Adv. with Ms Divya Suri Mr Sachin Bhardwaj, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr Rajesh Katoch, Adv. ORDER Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral) By way of this order, we shall dispose of Income Tax Appeals Nos.101, 102, 103, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from the date of conclusion of the search. The subsequent amendment, in Section 158BE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), by adding Explanations 2(a) and (b), that increased the period for limitation to two years, does not apply to the case of the assessee. It is further argued that a perusal of the record reveals that adequate opportunity was not provided to the assessee as relevant documents, were supplied, after delay. The Tribunal having accepted that adequate opportunity was not provided to the assessee, it should not have remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. Counsel for the revenue, however, submits that Explanation 2(a) and (b), added in Section 158BE of the Act, is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The explanation is clarificatory and, therefore, applies to the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal has rightly held that the assessment cannot be said to be barred by limitation and for the said purpose, has rightly relied upon a judgment of the Kerala High Court in T.O.Abrahim Co. versus Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and others, (1999) 238 ITR 501 (Kerala). We find no reason to differ with the interpretation of the High Court of Kerala or the opinion recorded by the Tribunal. The first question is answered against the assessee. As regards the second question, the Tribunal has, while holding that adequate opportunity was not provided to assessee, remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for adjudication afr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X