9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e u/s.148 of the Act, was served on the assessee on 06.04.2011 for very same assessment years. Both the notices were dated 22.03.2011. There is nothing in law which would bar an AO from issuing two notices u/s.148 of the Act. If both the notices are dated even the second notice can only be considered as a replica of the original notice. Hence in our opinion, the time limit for completion of the assessments can be reckoned only from the date of service of notice on 06.04.2011. If we reckon one year period from the end of the financial year in which the notice was served, the last date would be 31.03.2013. Limitation under second proviso will not apply since the notice was served on 06.04.2011. Impugned assessment orders were passed on 28. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22.12.2008. CIT (A) on appeals of the assessee had held that jurisdictional conditions required for issuance of notice u/s.153C of the Act, were not fulfilled. As mentioned above he had annulled the assessments. 03. Thereafter AO taking an opinion that during the relevant previous years assessee had purchased lands and there were reasons to believe that income had escaped assessments, issued notices u/s.148 of the Act. Thereafter, assessments were completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, on 28.03.2013, for the impugned assessment years. Additions were made by the AO for investments in land for both the years considering such investments to be unexplained. 04. Aggrieved assessee moved in appeals before the CIT (A) for both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the reassessments ought have been completed before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice u/s.148 of the Act, was served. According to him, vide second proviso to said sub-section, for a notice served between first day of April, 2005 and 1st day of April 2011, time period was only nine months. According to him, the second notice served on 06.04.2011 could not be considered as a valid notice u/s.148 of the Act, when the original notice was subsisting. 06. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 07. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. There is no dispute that first notice u/s.148 of the Act, was issued and served on the assessee on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
