TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Tatineni Meher Prasad along with his brother Sri Tatineni Meher Sitaram purchased the immovable property of an open plot admeasuring 289.05 sq.yds at D.No.7-30-14 7-30-15, Main Road, Rajahmundry from two non-residents namely Sri Devatha Sriram Murthy and Sri Devatha Nagesh Mohan and two other residents namely Sri Devatha Sai Prasad and Sri Devatha Sudhakar. The said transaction was registered on 11.02.2008 vide document No.709/2008 with SRO, Rajahmundry. The immovable property was purchased for a consideration of ₹ 46,00,000/-, whereas the fair market value of the property as per SRO was ₹ 58,03,000/-. The non-residents have not filed the returns of income for the assessment year 2008-09 disclosing the share of their capital gains, as per Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as Act ). The consideration paid by the assessee for acquiring the property and the shares of the coowners are as under : Sl. No. Name of the Seller Consideration paid by Sri Tatineni Meher Prasad (Resident) Consideration paid by Sri Tatineni Meher Sitaram (Resident) Total Consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-residents in the financial year 2006-07 and the assessment year involved is 2008-09. The Ld.AR submitted that the amendment to section 148 extending the time limit of six years for issue of notice u/s 148 came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2012 by Finance Act, 2012, thus, argued that the notice issued u/s 148 was barred by limitation and the assessee s case is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of V.Pratima Rao and Others in ITA No.69 to 74/Viz/2018 dated 06.06.2018 and accordingly submitted that the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and requested to quash the notice and orders passed by the lower authorities. 4. On the other hand, the Ld.DR vehemently opposed and argued that the amendment to section 149(3) has come into force w.e.f. 01.04.2012 and the ITAT relied on the decision of coordinate bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Madhucon Sino Hydro JV Vs. DCIT in ITA No.246/Hyd/2015 dated 15.07.2015 and the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SS Gadgil reported in 53 ITR 231.The ITAT while deciding the case of V.Pratima Rao and Others has not applied the law correctly and there was a contradiction in the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical to the appeal in the case of V.Pratima Rao and others supra. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract para No.7.1 to 7.2. which reads as under : 7.1. We have carefully considered the arguments made by both the parties. In the instant case, the assessment year involved was 2007-08 and the time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 in the case of agent of non- resident was two years from the end of the relevant assessment year, which was expired on 31.03.2010. As argued by the Ld.AR the issue was dead as on 31.03.2010. The amendment has come into force w.e.f. 1.7.2012 and the amendment was also not retrospective effect. The amendment made subsequent to the expiry of the time limit cannot be made applicable to the assessments which was already time barred by that date and the issue stands dead. The issue which was already dead cannot be revived with a subsequent amendment unless the same amendment is made with retrospective effect. Similar issue has come up before the Hon ble ITAT Coordinate Bench of Hyderabad, relied upon by the Ld.AR and the ITAT expressed similar view and held that the time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 was barred by limitation. For sake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Born). 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal Company (supra)held that limitation having expired under the old provision before coming into force of the amending law and the amending law having not been made retrospective, notice under section 34 was barred by limitation. For ready reference, we extract relevant para of the order of Hon ble Supreme Court in para No.9 of the order which reads as under : 9. As we have already pointed out, the right to commence a proceeding for assessment against the assessee as an agent of a non-resident party under the IT Act before it was amended, ended on 31st March, 195 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
