IN13H3HKHiCOURTINFKARNATAKA
CHRCUTFBENCHJMFDHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY or SEPTEMBER " %
PRESENT
THE HOTWBLE MR. JUS':£f'ICl:E~ i{fiMAR= é 1'
Arm
THE I-ION'BLE MR.J_UsT1cE%: 'EgsEEEN1VA$E VVGOWDA
ITA"'1'$O..1?.. 1:3; M
BETWEEN:
1. QFKV' .
INCO_ME$_ TAX; _ '_ E
HUBITLT. ' '
2. DEFICER,
WARD ---- 1-(3':»,. D
HUBMDV-_*'
- _ (B'gr?sI§i:.r«:%1.v.SAHESHACHALA, ADV.)
' s_Ri'§T?DA'L1cHAND AKOTHARI,
BU'1"1"ER MARKET,
~HvBu.
Eg:B'1Y"%_~sR1.M.v.JAvAL1, ADV.)
."APPELLANTS
."RESPONDENT
L//W”
THIS ITA IS FILED U/S 260-A OF I.T.AcT, 1961,
ARISING OUT OF ORDER DT.23.06.04 PASSED INITA
NO.1394/B/O3 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR I9.S5,;S7,
PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT__§’_:i.MAYf—-::
PLEASED To FORMULATE THE _.S,(§BS’FAN.TIALl
QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED T1*Il§RElN’-AN;D.iETCV_v«[3
THIS APPEAL CO1\/£Il”Jll(‘}”*-,(z)§\E VHEAl1é2iiI\Ie(3VV THIS if
DAY, KUMARJ DELIVERED FxOLl§”O\?l}’l’1\:EG:i’g
J if :i’LS;I,;;E* N”
1986-18?” * fit,
2. The” Corrxniissioner of Income Tax has
challeinged the~–..oorre:-:tneSS of the order passed by the
»lncoIn.e=.Ta§{~–.Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench A
H where the tribunal annulled the
~ Atoiassessment was barred by limitation.
aSSleSSine’:alt on the ground that the notice issued prior
3. The assessee is a money lender. A search
action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act_,._’had
taken place on 19.08.1988. The original
was completed under Section 143(3) read 8′
147 on 30.03.1990 on the basis’-of”
emanating from the seized bookslof
the said assessment was anr”tu.l}–ed. However, agdirection 0′
was given to the Asses.sing.’ti0l’ficerjto._ isstie”fre’sh notice
under Section 148 providingthe a.sse.ssee’_.time to file the
return in not than da3t’si;.i_”-Aggriieved by the said
order; the’ appeal to the Income
Appellate ‘Tribunal; fitteti” order dated 07.01.2000, the
tribjirial anr1″t1l_led the assessment. The tribunal upheld
jlljorder. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous
.Petiti0ti°bVef0r~e”the tribunal that the hearing notice Was
not served” on him and therefore, assessee be given an
8 ‘topportuinity of being heard. T he tribunal vide its order
ii’-dated 18.12.2000 recalled its earlier order dated
‘”0’7.01.2000. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the
tribunal by its order dated 28.02.2001 has held the
annulment of the assessment is not correct. i-lowefi/’er, it
upheld the directions to issue fresh notice
fresh assessment. The said order was K g
revenue before this Court
However, in the meanwhile_4_’noticéviiqnad
assessment had been compVlieted._V said
appeal came to p infructuous.
Thereafter, the impvLA1g1’1:i’3dr In the
impugned orpde¥;s.i.l-ag-giiii the a_ssessn*i-ent is annulled on
the gzfiounidi issued and the proceedings
initiated.rV_Vvere’ by time calculating the
period from t.he”original proceedings. Aggrieved by the
said “the present appeal is filed.
4?.” ‘v’fThe learned Counsel for the appellant
econtends that the time is to be computed from the date
direction issued to the department to issue fresh
if “notice and to complete assessment. If the time is
\
computed from that day, it is in time. The tribunal was
in error in computing the time from original proceedings
and therefore, the impugned orders require
As the tribunal has not decided the case
matter is to be remitted back. tomthe.
consideration in accordance it
5. The learned ior
fairly submitted that xtl_’1e tribunal is
CITOIICOUS.
the aifioresaid undisputed fact,
the assetssnieritiipirocVe’edi’n’gs commenced in pursuance
of the directions issued, to issue notice of fresh hearing
to.x”the”‘.i:as:scssee then pass appropriate orders on
circumstances, the period stipulated
un”der.i__’law«i’is to be calculated from the date of direction
H Arissuedand not from the date of the original proceedings.
i°.iT’herefore, the order of the tribunal holding that it is
it “”barred by time requires interference, consequently, the
it/’
assessment orders cannot be sustained is erroneous
and it requires to be set aside. Accordingly, we
following order:
1)
2)
3)
Appeal is allowed.
The order of the
proceedings arebarred”by”time;’is’_heVreb_y set
aside and held is irletirnej.
The tribunal ha”s””r:o’t d’ecided”the” case on
merits. matter’.is-r._rerr1ii.tted back to the
tribunal for .}fres’h7’corisideratiori on merits
and. in V,a-cco:rdan_c.e ‘ ‘with-..”‘EaW affording
reasoriablle oppiorturiityuto both the parties.
Sd/-5
Iudg”‘§
Sd/’:2
kids?