TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted in cases where a search is initiated or books of account or other documents or any assets are requisitioned on or after the January 1, 1997. Keeping all these material facts in totality in its mind, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly held that the new Explanation 1 inserted to section 158BE of the Act with effect from June 1, 2002 was not retrospective and thus the assessment order in question passed on July 14, 2011, was barred by limitation as the prescribed limitation for passing the order was up to May 30, 2011, after exclusion of the stay period. The first appellate order in this regard is thus upheld. - I. T. (SS) A. No. 15/Delhi/2013 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2016 - I. C. Sudhir (Judicial Member) And L. P. Sahu (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : Ravi Jain, Departmental Representative For the Respondent : Salil Kapoor and C. S. Anand, Advocates ORDER I. C. Sudhir (Judicial Member) 1. The Revenue has questioned the first appellate order on the following grounds : 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not correct in law and facts : 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition without going into the merits of the case in respect of the addition of ₹ 40,39,002 under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained gifts. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition without going into the merits of the case in respect of the addition of ₹ 19,01,678 on account of unexplained investment deposit in bank account. 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition without going into the merits of the case in respect of the addition of ₹ 6,32,630 on account of undisclosed investment towards construction of income. 2. Since the issue raised in ground No. 2 against the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessment in question was barred by limitation goes to the root of the matter, we prefer to decide it first and parties were directed to advance their respective arguments on the issue. 3. Heard and consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this section, limitation is with reference to the date of search. The proviso inserted with effect from June 1, 2002, in the section is relevant and effective for the search made on or after June 1, 2002. In the present case, not only the date of search was prior to June 1, 2002, but also the date of notice issued under section 158BC of the Act was prior to the said date June 1, 2002. He submitted that, in the present case, the hon'ble Allahabad High Court had ordered the Assessing Officer not to pass the final order but it had allowed the assessment proceedings to continue. While passing the final order, the hon'ble High Court was aware that 15 days time was there to pass the orders hence allowed the Assessing Officer to continue with the assessment proceedings. The hon'ble High Court, while passing the final order, has specifically directed that for the purpose of calculation of limitation for completing the block assessment proceeding, the period with effect from the date of stay order till the appearance of the Commissioner (assessee) was directed to be excluded. The Assessing Officer had passed the order on July 24, 2011, much beyond the time permitted by the hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court, vide order dated March 17, 2004, had been pleased to stay the Assessing Officer from passing final order during the pendency of the writ petition. The hon'ble High Court while writing so had made it clear that in the meantime the block assessment proceedings may go on but no final order shall be passed. There is no dispute that when the interim order on March 17, 2004, was passed by the hon'ble High Court, 15 days were remaining with the Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order for the block period as per the limitation prescribed under section 158BE of the Act. The writ petition was finally disposed of by the hon'ble High Court on May 2, 2011, wherein the hon'ble High Court had directed the assessee to appear before the authorities concerned along with the certified copy of the order in the week commencing May 16, 2011, which was complied with by the assessee. For the purpose of calculation of limitation for completing the block assessment proceedings, the hon'ble High Court had made it clear that the period with effect from the date of stay order till the appearance of the petitioner (assessee) shall be excluded. 10. We do not find substance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
