TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the parties and going through the chronology of the dates and the manner of computing time limitations in the form of charts furnished which are made part of this order, we are of the view that the direction of the Assessing Officer for special audit was served on the assessee on 25.1.2008 which must be considered for the purpose of computing the limitation of time in making assessment. In that case, the direction of the Assessing Officer was subsequent to the expiry of the due date for making assessment. Also without prejudice, even if the date 25.1.2008 considered by the Assessing Officer as the date of service of the direction and not 28.1.2008 as considered by the CIT(A), is taken into account, still the assessments were not made in the period specified u/s 153B of the Act. Accordingly, from all these points of view, we are of the opinion that the assessments made by the Assessing Officer for all these five assessment years uniformly on 24.9.2008 are bad in law. Thus, this part of Ground No.2 in all the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A. Nos.1858 to 1862/Mds/2014 - - - Dated:- 5-6-2015 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Accountant Member And Shri Challa Nage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order for special audit u/s 142A of the Act was communicated to the assessee on 25.1.2008 which is subsequent to the due date of 31.12.2007. On these facts, it is the case of ordering special audit when the assessments are already time barred. Secondly, if the date of service of the order for special audit is taken as 25.1.2008, the assessments should have been completed on 22.9.2008 or earlier, whereas the assessments were made on 24.9.2008. On this ground also, the assessments are barred by time limit. Further, if the date of the order for special audit is taken as 10.12.2007(the date of order of the Assessing Officer which was served on the assessee on 25.1.2008) even then, assessments which were made on 24.9.2008 are barred by time after considering the original 45 days + extended 135 days + 60 days from the end of the date of completion of special audit. Ignoring these events and the arguments of the assessee, the CIT(A) introduced a new date which is 28.1.2008 and observed that assessments are not time barred. The CIT(A) is of the opinion that the order of the Assessing Officer dated 10.12.007 was served on the assessee on 28.1.2008. In fact, the CIT(A) misread the said 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel also made various other arguments on the legal issue raised before us. At the end of the arguments, the ld. Counsel has also filed written submission before us. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). He made a written submission dutifully quoting the contents of para 6 of the CIT(A) s order are relevant. He also submittied that the amendment brought in proviso to section 142(2C) of the Act is clarificatory in nature and it should have a retrospective application and hence, Assessing Officer has authority for suo motu extension of due date in matters of special audit. This amendment undisputedly relates to the suo motu extension powers of the Assessing Officer. 7. On the legal issue, we head both the parties and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The written submissions made by both the counsels are taken in account too. There is no dispute on the facts. The assessee was covered u/s 132 of the Act and the due date for making the assessments is 31.12.2007. This is the case where special audit was ordered by the Assessing Officer vide order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit. Year 2007 is a leap year and February has 29 days. The CIT(A) ignored the same. From all these different perspectives, the impugned assessments made on 24.9.2008 are barred by limitation. The assessee furnished the manner of computing the due dates being 25.1.2008 and 28.1.2008 to demonstrate that the assessments made on 24.9.2008 are bad in law. We find it relevant to extract the same as under: Scenario 1 - Taking date of service of notice to appellant as 25-01-2008 (Date as per Order Sheet Noting) S. No Particulars of Event Date 1 Purported date of service of notice ufs.142(2A) of the Act granting 45 days time to complete the special audit. Month Days January 7 February 29 March 9 Total 45 25-01-2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. No Particulars of Event Date 1 Purpoted date of service of notice u/s.142(2A) of the Act granting 45 days time to complete the special audit. (Assuming but not agreeing to the date of service) 28-01-2008 2 45 days for submitting the report ends on Month Days January 4 February 29 March 12 Total 45 12-03-2008 3 Assessing Officer suo moto extends the time limit by 135 days after the due date for submitting the report. (Assuming but not agreeing to the extension of time) 10-03-2008 4 Extended due date for furnishing the audit report Month Days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f computing time limitations in the form of charts furnished which are made part of this order, we are of the view that the direction of the Assessing Officer for special audit was served on the assessee on 25.1.2008 which must be considered for the purpose of computing the limitation of time in making assessment. In that case, the direction of the Assessing Officer was subsequent to the expiry of the due date for making assessment. Further, without prejudice, even if the date 25.1.2008 considered by the Assessing Officer as the date of service of the direction and not 28.1.2008 as considered by the CIT(A), is taken into account, still the assessments were not made in the period specified u/s 153B of the Act. Accordingly, from all these points of view, we are of the opinion that the assessments made by the Assessing Officer for all these five assessment years uniformly on 24.9.2008 are bad in law. Thus, this part of Ground No.2 in all the appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee. 12. Considering our decision on the legality of the assessments, which is in favour of the assessee, we are of the opinion that adjudication of other legal issues as well as grounds relating to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
