9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs 1986-87 to 1996-97. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 31.08.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Where the Tribunal is justified in law in not holding that the block assessment order passed by the assessing office for the block assessment years 1986-87 to 1996-97 is barred by limitation on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding there was material evidence found and seized in the course of search under section 132 of the Act on the basis of which the alleged excess depreciation is to be brought to tax in the block assessment made under chapter XIV-B of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether the Tribunal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer by an order dated 30.05.1997 inter alia held that the assessee purchased the assets from M/s PL Finance and Investments Ltd. at a higher value of Rs. 3,62,52,309/-, with a view to claim depreciation on the enhanced value as against actual written down value of Rs. 87,75,621/- in the books of accounts of M/s PL Finance and Investments Ltd. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment for the block Assessment Years and adopted the value of assets at Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and allowed depreciation on this value alone and disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee in excess of depreciation. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000/- instead of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the assessee with regard to first substantial question of law pertaining to non adjudication of the question of limitation submitted that search was conducted under Section 132 of the Act on 29.03.1996 and on 31.03.1997 i.e., from one year from the month in which last of the authorizations for search has been executed, the limitation for passing the block assessment period expired on 31.03.1997 and in the instant case the block assessment order has been passed on 31.05.1997 i.e., beyond the period of one year from the end of month in which last of authorization of the search was executed. However, the tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, it is apposite tot ake note of legal effect of quashing of an order. The Supreme Court in SHREE CHAMUNDI MOPEDS LTD. VS. Church Of South India Trust Association, (1992) 3 SCC 1 has held that quashing of an order results in restoration of a position as it stood on the date of passing of the order which had been quashed. It has further been held that if an order passed by an Appellate Authority is quashed and the matter is remanded the result would be the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Authority would be restored and can be said to be pending before the Appellate Authority after quashing order passed by the Appellate Authority. Thus, the effect of quashing of an order of Appellate Authority is that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
