High Court of Punjab and Haryana

 

Commissioner of Income-tax

 

v.

 

Guru Nanak Mercantile Co.

 

M.M. KUMAR AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.

 

IT REFERENCE NO. 221 OF 1995

 

April 3, 2007

 

 

 

Section 153, read with section 144B, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Time limit for completion of - Assessment year 1978-79 - For relevant year, on remand of assessment, Assessing Officer passed final assessment order on 21-7-1984 - Tribunal set aside assessment order holding that in terms of section 153(2A), assessment having not been completed within two years of remand, same was barred by time - Admittedly, before passing final order, Assessing Officer had sent draft order under section 144B to assessee on 23-1-1984 and directions from IAC were received back by Assessing Officer on 19-7-1984 - Whether if said period of 173 days, as spent in proceedings under section 144B was added in normal period of limitation, fresh order passed after remand was clearly within period of limitation as provided for under Act, and Tribunal was wrong in not giving due effect to clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to section 153(2A) - Held, yes

FACTS

For the assessment year 1978-79, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment of the assessee on 30-1-1981.  On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment order.  On remand, the Assessing Officer, in terms of section 144B, forwarded the draft assessment order to the assessee and sought directions from the IAC.

Thereafter, on 21-7-1984, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) partially decided in favour of the assessee.  On further appeal, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order holding that in terms of section 153(2A), the assessment having not been completed within two years of the remand, the order was barred by time.  While doing so, the Tribunal did not give the benefit of the time spent by the revenue in proceedings under section 144B.

On reference:

HELD

In the instant case, the order under section 250 was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 10-9-1981.  If normal period of limitation was counted in terms of sub-section (2A) of section 153, fresh order of assessment could be passed up to 31-3-1984.  However, the extended period of limitation to the extent of 180 days was available in terms of clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to section 153 as admittedly, draft order was sent to the assessee under section 144B on 23-1-1984, which was duly received by the assessee on 24-1-1984, directions in terms of section 144B were received back from the IAC by the Assessing Officer on  19-7-1984; if this period of 173 days, as spent in proceedings under section 144B was added in the normal period of limitation, the fresh order passed after the remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) would clearly fall within the period of limitation as provided for under the Act. [Para 7]

The Tribunal had gone wrong in not giving due effect to clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to section 153. [Para 8]