9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Part II of the proviso do not exist, then, when an assessment order is passed under sub-section (3) of section 143, no action can be taken under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year - The end of the relevant assessment year and four years therefrom expires - When the reassessment order was barred by the law of limitation, the order passed by the authorities are in accordance with law. - Decided against the revenue. - - - - - Dated:- 9-4-2013 - KUMAR N. AND MANOHAR B., JJ. JUDGMENT N. Kumar J.-The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order dated June 9, 2006, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") which has u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... represents loss of advance paid by the assessee. There was no case of holding any asset not to speak of a "long-term capital asset" under the Act. The so-called long-term capital loss was wrongly claimed and wrongly allowed in the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, it requires to be withdrawn. Accordingly, he proceeded to pass an order disallowing the said long-term capital loss. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appellate authority was of the view that no new material or evidence came to the notice of the Assessing Officer warranting reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment order. There was no failure on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellate authorities were right in holding that issuance of notice on March 28, 2002, under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was clearly barred by limitation, as the same is beyond the period of four years instead of taking the extended period of six years as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act? (ii) Whether the appellate authorities were right in holding that the excess loss allowed to be carried away cannot be disallowed in the assessment proceedings as it would amount to change of opinion?" The facts are not in dispute. The assessment order came to be passed under section 143(3) of the Act on March 28, 1997. Before passing the assessment order, the assessing authority had called for the assessee to explain its claim for disallowance of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
