TMI Blog1994 (6) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment order itself it is recorded that the assessment was being completed ex parts since there is no time to hear the assessee. There was an appeal to the CIT(A) who set aside the assessment and restored the same to the ITO. This order was passed on 31-5-1983. There was a further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal. The contention of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the CIT(A) should have deleted the addition instead of setting aside the assessment and restoring it to the ITO. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A). The order of the Tribunal was passed on 31-1-1985. 3. In the meantime on 27-7-1983, i.e., after the order of the CIT(A) setting aside the assessment and before the order of the Tribunal, the ITO is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to uphold the plea. The relevant dates are given above. Section 153(2A) which was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 to apply from the assessment year 1971-72, is reproduced below: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1971, and any subsequent assessment year, an order of fresh assessment under section 146 or in pursuance of an order, under section 250, section 254, section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of two years from the end of financial year in which the order under section 146 cancelling the assessment is passed by the Assessing Officer or the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le reason that it was not the Tribunal which set aside the assessment. The words used in section 153(2A) refer to an order under section 250, section 254, section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment'. This clearly means that the limitation has to be reckoned from the first order by which the assessment is set aside. 6. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, dealing with a similar provision in the Wealth-tax Act, was inclined to take the view, on similar facts, that the assessment should be completed within a period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order of the CIT(A) was passed, though the Tribunal subsequently upheld the order of the CIT(A). This decision of the Tribunal is reported in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f account and some evidence regarding the flow of funds from Nepal to India which according to the assessee was a genuine borrowing made by her. Thus, there is no evidence to show that the assessee was informed of the charge of concealment before the normal period of limitation as laid down by the Gauhati High Court. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Hansraj Dhingra v. Union of India [1975] 98 ITR 397 held that before taking advantage of the extended period of limitation under section 153(1)(b), the ITO has to record a satisfaction regarding concealment of income and such satisfaction should be recorded only after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to have his say in the matter. If no such opportunity have been given, the exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
