TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax Officer was not satisfied with the returned figure submitted by the assessee and complying with the requirement under section 144B of the Income-tax Act as it then was, forwarded a draft of the proposed assessment order to the assessee. Objections to the draft assessment order having been raised by the assessee, it was sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner for approval. After approval, the assessment was completed and an order was made by the Income-tax Officer on October 13, 1980. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax challenging the order of assessment on merits as well as on grounds of limitation. The first appellate authority did not accept the challenge of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under subsection (4) or sub-section (5) of section 139, whichever is later .... Explanation 1. -In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section, - . . . (iv) the period (not exceeding one hundred and eighty days) commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer forwards the draft order under sub-section (1) of section 144B to the assessee and ending with the date on which the Assessing Officer receives the directions from the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (4) of that section, or, in a case where no objections to the draft order are received from the assessee, a period of thirty days, or ......" It is not di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order itself which was forwarded to the assessee and, accordingly, it should be accepted that, on February 25, 1980, when the draft was sent to the assessee, the Income-tax Officer was satisfied that there was concealment. In case the same is taken into consideration, the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer being within the period of limitation of normal assessment, i.e., September 27, 1980, the period of limitation is extended to eight years. The determination of the question of limitation depends on the facts found in the second appellate order. On a bare perusal of section 153 in its totality, there can be no doubt that the Income-tax Officer is required to be satisfied about the concealment within the normal period of as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tober 13, 1980, when the proceeding was initiated, to be the date of satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessment is barred by limitation is justified on the materials on record. Thus analysed, our conclusion is that (i) the Income-tax Officer is to be satisfied about concealment during the normal period of limitation of two years or 180 days added, as the case may be ; (ii) Even after satisfaction, proceedings for penalty may be initiated on a later date which would not affect the assessment order in case satisfaction of concealment is much earlier and within the normal period of limitation. In view of our aforesaid discussions, the answer to the question referred to us is that, on the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
