9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the assessment order is time-barred under section 153(1) for A.Y. 1974-75. Analysis: The appeal was against the order of the AAC for A.Y. 1974-75, challenging the time limit of the assessment order. The contention revolved around the interpretation of section 153(1) and the time frame for passing the assessment order. The key argument was whether the assessment order passed on 21st Sept., 1977 was within the time limit. The dispute centered on the calculation of the period of limitation under Expln. (1)(iv) to s. 153. The crux of the matter was whether the one hundred and eighty days extension should be added to the normal period of limitation or if it was the time limit for taking instructions from the IAC. The assessee argued that the assessment order was out of time, while the Deptl. Rep. contended that the order was within the extended time limit. The interpretation of the authorities below was challenged, emphasizing the correct understanding of Expln. (1)(iv) to s. 153. The argument focused on whether the extension of one hundred and eighty days was from the last date of the limitation or if it was the time limit for the ITO to forward the draft order. The Deptl. Rep. supported the view that the period of limitation was extended from the last date of the limitation, allowing the assessment order to be passed within the extended time frame. The crux was the calculation of the time limit extension and its application to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal analyzed Expln. (1)(iv) in detail to determine the correct interpretation of the time limit extension under s. 153. It was clarified that the extension of one hundred and eighty days was for computing the period of limitation in certain circumstances. The Tribunal examined the provisions in conjunction with s. 144B(1) to ascertain the timeline for passing the assessment order. The decision hinged on whether the ITO forwarded the draft assessment order within the extended time limit and received instructions from the IAC accordingly. The Tribunal ultimately agreed with the Deptl. Rep.'s interpretation, concluding that the assessment order was not barred by limitation as it was passed within the extended time frame provided under Expln. (1)(iv) to s. 153. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision that the assessment order was not time-barred, as it was passed within the extended time limit as per the provisions of section 153 and the correct interpretation of Expln. (1)(iv). The analysis focused on the timeline for forwarding the draft assessment order, receiving instructions from the IAC, and the overall time frame for passing the assessment order within the statutory limits.
|
