TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been completed within the prescribed time frame. The provision of sub section (2A) to Section 153, which provision, as discussed above, is not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. The order passed by ITAT, holding that the assessment order passed on 7.2.2007 was within limitation period is factually and legally correct and the said order does not suffer form any irregularity, illegality or perversity. Accordingly, both the questions of law are answered against the assessee. - ITAs No.7 of 2014, ITAs No. 4004, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4009 of 2013, 8 of 2014, WTAs No. 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4006 of 2013, 1,2,3 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2015 - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ And Tarlok Singh Chauhan, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Agrawal, Mr.Amit Singh Chandel and Mr. Satbir Singh, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Adv. JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these appeals, so they are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Out of 20 appeals before the ITAT, 9 appeals were filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it settled law that the period in which the proceedings remained pending in the court, have to be excluded while computing limitation and in case such period is excluded, then no exception to the proceedings could be taken as the same was well within the prescribed period of limitation. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is imperative that we give the seriatim list of events in relation to the proceedings completed by various authorities in the case of the assessee and as has been correctly noted in the impugned order and are reproduced as under: 16.3.1990 Assessment order under Section 16(5) at assessed Wealth of ₹ 1,50,000/- was passed 22.2.1993 CWT(A), Patiala vide order under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to make assessment de-novo and determine the correct status of the assessee. The Assessing Officer was also directed to keep in view the finding of CIT (Appeals) given in order dated 29.7.1985 in appeal No. 134/84-85 in the Wealth Tax case of assessee itself relating to assessment year 1978-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suit was filed for partition and rendition of accounts and injunction against the predecessor in interest of assessee, i.e. Raja Harmohinder Singh and others wherein the interim stay order was passed on 2.8.1995, whereby Raja Harmohinder Singh was restrained from alienating the property and at the same time, Land Acquisition Officer was directed not to disburse any compensation amount to any person. Raja Harmohinder Singh in the meanwhile expired on 23.5.2000 and thereafter the suit was ultimately decreed in favour of asessee on 1.9.2003. The assessee and his four other L.Rs i.e. Smt.Saroj Devi, Rajiv Kumar, Ragina Singh and Vijay Singh were declared entitled to the property left by Raja Harmohinder Singh. 10. In these proceedings, learned Addl. District Judge (1), Kangra held Bali Ram Sharma, Sneh Lata Sharma and Anil Kumar Shama to be the bonafide purchasers of 47% of re-determined compensation. It was also ordered that the remaining amount of determined compensation would be equally apportioned between L.Rs of Raja Harmohinder Singh. The claim set up by Ajay Singh and his mother Rani Bhagyawati as being son and wife of Raja Harmohinder Singh was not accepted. This led to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the pending litigation between the parties before the Tax Authorities and the fact that the tax liability of Raja Harmohindra Singh has been disputed, I am not inclined to pass any order on the aforesaid application of the Revenue. The application accordingly is dismissed. However, the revenue is at liberty to take such teps for recovery of tax due as are available to it under the law. 13. It was on 25.7.2006 that the judgment in RFA No.271 of 2003 and RFA No. 310 of 2003 was passed by this Court under which the status of the assets of Raja Harmohinder Singh, i.e. the assessee were held to be self acquired assets and not part of HUF. It was further held that 47% share of re-determined compensation awarded amount did not belong to the assessee but was to be distributed amongst three claimants to whom the assessee had sold his rights. Lastly, the issue of contradictory claims of L.Rs of original assessee, i.e. Raja Harmohinder Singh was also finally decided which laid to rest by this court vide aforesaid judgments. 14. Earlier to this, the assessee filed CWP No. 1251 of 2005 wherein he pointed out that his predecessor-in-interest, i.e. Raja Harmohinder Singh was the Karta of J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. It was on 8.2.2007 that the assessment order finally came to be passed. As observed earlier, these proceedings were challenged before ITAT as being barred by time. This contention of the assessee was rejected on the ground that till and so long conflicting claims of the L.Rs of the assessee were pending adjudication before the competent court of jurisdiction, issue of service of notice on the L.Rs would also be open to debate and the proceedings cannot be thus concluded. ITAT also referred to in its order various interim orders passed initially by the Addl. District Judge, Kangra and thereafter this court to reject the contention of the assessee. The plea of the assess was also rejected on the ground that once it had not chosen to question and challenge the validity of the notice issued to him before this court, the said ground was hardly open to challenge before it. 19. Having set out the factual background, it is now necessary that we refer to the provisions of law that provide for the time limit for completion of assessments and re-assessments. Section 17-A of the Wealth Tax Act and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act provides time limit for completion of assessment and rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 25 is passed by the Commissioner, on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the 1st day of April, 2000, such an order of fresh assessment may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 2002:] [Provided further that where the order under section 23A or section 24 is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 25 is passed by the Commissioner, on or after the 1st day of April, 2005, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words one year , the words nine months had been substituted.] (4) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the assessment or reassessment made on the assessee or any other person in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order under section 23, section 24, section 25, section 27 or section 29 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, and such assessment or reassessment may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be completed at any time. Explanation 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the said order, provided such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.] Section 153 of Income Tax Act Time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of- (a) two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable ; or (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 139, whichever is later : (2) No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served : Provided that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the 1st day of April, 2000, such assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 2002 : (2A) Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of clause (21) or clause (22B) or clause (23A) or clause (23B) or sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, under clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 and ending with the date on which the copy of the order withdrawing the approval or rescinding the notification, as the case may be, under those clauses is received by the Assessing Officer, or* [(iii) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited under sub-section (2A) of section 142 and ending with the last date on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit under that sub-section; or (iv) [***] (iva) the period (not exceeding sixty days) commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer received the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 158A and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (3) of that section is made by him, or (v) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission under section 245C is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apply to those cases where fresh assessment is required to be made in pursuance of an order of the appellate authorities passed under section 250 or 254 or 263 of 264 of the Act setting aside or canceling an assessment, meaning thereby wherever assessment order is cancelled or set aside by the appellate authority and the Assessment Officer is required to pass a fresh assessment order pursuant to the directions of the appellate authorities within the prescribed period under sub section (2A) of Section 153 of the Act. 21. But, wherever an assessment, reassessment or computation is to be made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under Sections 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 of the Act or in an order of any court in a proceedings otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, then no time limit is prescribed for passing such order by the Assessing Officer. 22. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we now proceed to examine as to whether it is the provisions as contained in sub section (2A) of Section 153 of the Act which would be attracted to the present case as is contended by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings stayed before the revenue department and, therefore, at this stage is now estopped from challenging and questioning the proceedings as being time barred especially when all these proceedings were initiated by the assessee himself. 26. To be fair to the learned counsel for the assessee, he in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1. Gulab Chand Moti Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 174 ITR 117 (MP); 2. Peeru Lal Mohan Lal Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 257 ITR 198 (Raj); 3. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Jodhana Real Estate Development Corporation (P) Ltd; (2005) 273 ITR 195 (Raj); 4. Bhatia Motor Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 288 ITR 31 (MP); 5. Bharti Engg. Corpn Vs. Union of India ors (2008) 289 ITR 400 (P H); 6. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd (2007) 290 ITR 543 (Ori); 7. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhan Textile (P) Ltd (2008) 300 ITR 176 (Del); 8. Manik Chand Burman Vs. Income Tax Officer (1998) 229 ITR 90 (All); 9. Spice Infotainment Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 247 CTR (Del) 500. 27. Notably ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
