2017 (9) TMI 1928

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2 before the ITAT, which would decide the Petitioner s appeal including the above additional ground, in accordance with law, while passing the final order.
Justice S. Muralidhar And Justice Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Rahul aushik, Senior Standing Counsel. ORDER CM 31942/2017 (exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 7734/2017 & CM 31941/2017 (stay) 2. Notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Rahul Kaushik, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent - Revenue. 3. The name of the ITAT (Respondent No.1) is deleted from the array of parties. 4. The Petitioner challenges an interim order dated 8t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Court in Sahara India (Firm) v CIT (supra) held: "7.4. In the present proceedings what we are examining, is whether the extended period of limitation as provided under Explanation l (iii) of Section 153 is available to the Assessing Officer for completion of assessment u/s 143(3), or not. The assessee contends that the order u/s 142(2C), extending the period granted for completion and submission of audit report is made without an application being made for extension by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason, and hence the extension is bad in law and hence the AO would not get the benefit of the extended period of time to specified in Explanation l(iii) of Section 153 of the Act. In our view, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was upheld by this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nilkanth Concast (P.) Ltd. [2016] 70 taxmann.com 157 (Del). 8. The Court notices that the observation in Sahara India (Firm) v CIT (supra) was in the peculiar facts of that case and was not meant to be a general observation applicable across the board for all cases. This is apparent from the observations in the following paras: "24. The upshot of the entire discussion is that the exercise of power under Section 142 (2A) of the Act leads to serious civil consequences and, therefore, even in the absence of express provision for affording an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing to an assessee and in the absence of any express provision in Section 142 (2A) barring the givin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X