THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE B.SRE.iENNA$E»VG«oxiiDA' 1.
-1″
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KU1ViA-RT/: ” ”
AND
DATED THIS THE 3333 DAY OF SEPTEMBER
rm N0. 121f7g2oGsE– A
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER’
INc0ME;jI”A_x,
I~IUBLIs_.” * E
ITHE3′ :(3xaf9*IcER,
WARD – 1-mgk
» _ (B.’v*O«:s1gi%’.r.q%%.v.sHEs:+1AcHALA, ADV.)
S1§1V’;SI)/LILECHAND A.KoT1-1AR:,
BUTTER MARKET,
~ HUBLI.
{.BY”A_SRI.M.V.JAVALE, ADV.)
. . APPELLANTS
…RESPONI)ENT
THIS ITA IS FILED U/S 260«~A OF I.T.ACT, _.I.__961,
ARISING OUT OF ORDER D’I’.23.06.04 PASSEDV~.I’N_’I_II7FA
NO.1393/B/2003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT _
86, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE CQVHHTA MAY BE
PLEASED To FORMULATEg’ SjUShS’TANAT’3A’LT¢
QUESTIONS 01? LAW STATED AND
THIS APPEAL COMING ON”‘FVO–R HE.>A.E:1ING ‘§’H’IS:’,
DAY, KUMARJ DEL1vERED”THE: F’OLi,_C:)WT_”‘N(§:.; M
iii. 9 G_._AIvi AE__TNIT.
1. This appeeII e».:SS-Sessment year
1985786″: ‘A — QT; 2 I
I._TI1eI’:’.Cof11Tf1ii-SS;iorIer of Income Tax has
cha11_er1ged–«,th;eIoorfectzoess of the order passed by the
Tax I–‘{p’p-e.1.late Tribunal, Bangalore Bench. A
cIé§t’ed”‘Q3I0:6::;2.004 where the tribunal annulled the
to aSSeS:Sment was barred by limitation.
é1SSeSsrne:ij; on the ground that the notice issued prior
I/
3. The assessee is a money lender. A search
action under Section 132 of the Income Tax
taken place on 19.08.1988. The
was completed under Section 14l3»(3_} if
147 on 30.03.1990 on the bee;s.le1~i the _i’in.lf0rlniiat.i:0hp
emanating from the seizedV’bo_oks of H “ac__c0un’t:. “‘i:n”‘appeal,”‘ 8
the said assessment was ‘>1-lowelVer., a direction
was given to the Assessi_1ngl’Oi’ficerlto’»is’sue fresh notice
under Section ‘asseszsee time to file the
return in Jiggrieved by the said
order;_:i the appeal to the lncome
Appellate Tribuwnall.A’– eyeballs order dated 07.01.2000, the
tribunal annulled’ the assessment. The tribunal upheld
order. W’iIi’he assessee filed a Miscellaneous
.Pet_ition”bvefore”the tribunal that the hearing notice was
not serV’ed””0n him and therefore, assessee be given an
it opportunity of being heard. The tribunal Vide its order
18.12.2000 recalled its earlier order dated
1 11 “”0’7.01.2000. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the
11/,
tribunal by its order dated 28.02.2001 has held the
annulment of the assessment is not correct. However, it
upheld the directions to issue fresh notice fo:5imiak;i’i’1g
fresh assessment. The said order was challe
revenue before this Court
However, in the meanwhile
assessment had been comp–lete,d. sjsaidii
appeal came to aslllviinfructuous.
Thereafter, the In the impugned is annulled on the and the proceedings
initiate’d.,_pwere by time calculating the
period from t»h_e”original proceedings. Aggrieved by the
“the present appeal is filed.
‘v’;l’l’he learned Counsel for the appellant
contends that the time is to be computed from the date
bofildlirection issued to the department to issue fresh
if “flriotice 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 pro..eeed..ings
and therefore, the impugned orders require _i1i-teriference ~
As the tribunal has not decided.t»he._case.ioin’ Ru
matter is to be remitted back to.
consideration in accordanceayiiith laxhzi/’ an’d_on
5. The learned Coun..s_e.li*fsor themrevspondent
fairly submitted thatiiithe a.p.pr’oa:ch.v”0Lf;” -the tribunal is
CITOIICOLIS.
the aforesaid undisputed fact,
the asse..ssment_ip*roc:e’e.di11gs commenced in pursuance
of the’ dgirections’ issued, to issue notice of fresh hearing
to_ii’the”K:assessee and then pass appropriate orders on
circumstances, the period stipulated
under law “is to be calculated from the date of direction
iss_ued'”and not from the date of the original proceedings.
7i’he’refore, the order of the tribunal holding that it is
it Mloarred by time requires interference, consequently, the
assessment orders cannot be sustained is erroneous
and it requires to be set aside. Accordingly, we pass the
following order:
1)
2}
Appeal is allowed.
The order of the tribunal ll
proceedings are barred bytirne is’ he’reb__y”set’
aside and held that itis in time;
The tribunal hlasivllrsot one
merits. The matter_lis_ remitted ‘lba<;;1< to the
tribunal for fresir–oo«r1sideration. on merits
and in '.aer:or+ia1jaoewith law affording
reasonable lop_'portLin1'ty_tofboth the parties.
Ordered ' I
Sc!/-5
IudgE'
Sd/'.2
Iudgé'