TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. All these appeals have been preferred by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Appeals Nos. 19/2007, 20/2007, 31/2007 and 32/2007 pertaining to the assessment years 1991-92, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, respectively, have been filed against the consolidated judgment dated June 9, 2006, of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the ITAT) passed in I. T. A. Nos. 1710 to 1713/D/D/2004. Appeal No. 70/2007 pertaining to the assessment year 1992-93 has been filed against the judgment dated November 2, 2006, of the Income-tax Appeal late Tribunal passed in I. T. A. No. 1577/Del of 2004 and Appeal No. 37/ 2007 pertaining to the assessment year 1993-94 has been preferred against the judgment dated March ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 55 per cent. is applicable for the assessment year 1995-96. He, therefore, issued notices under section 148 on May 29, 2001, for the assessment years 1991-92, 1993-94 and 1994-95 and for the assessment year 1995-96 notice under section 148 was issued on February 8, 2002. In response, it was submitted by the assessee that the original return be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer after considering the assessee's submissions submitted in response to notice under section 143(2) completed the assessments on the same income as was assessed under section 143(3)/154 for the assessment years 1991-92, 1993-94 and 1994-95 and under section 143(3) for the assessment year 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) were right on the application of Explanation 2(c)(ii) of section 147 of the Income-tax Act. Even if it is deemed to be the escaped assessment within the meaning of Explanation 2(c)(ii) of section 147, then in view of the undisputed fact that there was no fault of the assessee, the delay could not be condoned. Limitation comes to an end even under the proviso appended to section 147. Limitation of four years had already been expired. Therefore, the amendment in the original assessment order was time-barred. We agree with the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 10. Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently argued that the limitation provided under the proviso is attracted in case of failure on the part of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
