TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Such being the case, when the ITAT rendered its findings, limitation prescribed by the amendment had come into force. Even otherwise, the ITAT order dated 13.8.98 meant, in the opinion of this Court, a direction to the GTO to assume a jurisdiction, which he never possessed in the first instance, given that the amendment had come into force. Absence of service of notice meant that, in fact, there was no notice and therefore, no valid assessment. However, proceeding to hold otherwise and sustain the findings of the GTO and the lower appellate authority, the ITAT clearly erred in law. The questions of law framed are therefore, answered in favour of the assessee - GTA 4/2007 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2018 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. A.K. CHAWL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to issue notice much later on 16.3.2000 under Section 15(2). By this time, an amendment had been brought about to the Gift Tax Act by way of proviso to Section 15(2), which imposed the time limit of six months, from the end of the financial year in which the gift tax return is filed or six months from the date of filing of return whichever was later. The assessee contended that the notice issued on 16.3.2000 was beyond the period of time. The AO, however, rejected the contention and proceeded to bring to tax the amounts. The further appeal to the Commissioner was likewise unsuccessful. The ITAT by its order dated 12.1.2007 affirmed the order of the CIT(A). The ITAT rejected the assessee s contention holding that there was no time period p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1983, became the subject matter of the notice by the Gift Tax officials in March, 1987, which resulted in the filing of a return on 16.4.1987. The first round of litigation resulted in finality of one aspect i.e. though, notice under Section 15(2) was issued in terms of the record, it was only served upon the assessee. Such being the case, when the ITAT rendered its findings, limitation prescribed by the amendment had come into force. Even otherwise, the ITAT order dated 13.8.98 meant, in the opinion of this Court, a direction to the GTO to assume a jurisdiction, which he never possessed in the first instance, given that the amendment had come into force. Furthermore, absence of service of notice meant that, in fact, there was no notice and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
