9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Feb., 1983. The ITO made the draft assessment order on 19th Dec., 1983. The directions from the IAC, Central Range-II, A' bad were received on 15th June, 1984 and therefore, the assessment order under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144B was passed on 29th June, 1984. 3. Of this several grounds taken by the assessee in the present appeal, the first ground relates to the question of limitation whether the assessment under consideration is barred by time or not. Since this question goes to the very root of the assessment, intend to deal with this ground first. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the IAC, Central Range-II, Ahmedabad was having concurrent jurisdiction in the matter and as the revised return was filed on 22nd Feb., 1983 but the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led on 12th June, 1980. According to the provisions of s. 153(1)(a)(iii), the assessment could have been completed by 31st March, 1983. However, since a revised return was filed on 22nd Feb., 1983, the assessment could have been completed by 22nd Feb., 1984, in view of the provisions of s. 153(1)(c). However, it is also a fact that the ITO had sought the directions and instructions of the IAC concerned under s. 144B in the present case. It means that if the provisions of s. 144B are held to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case than a period of 180 days more shall have to be allowed as per provisions of Expln. I(iv) to s. 153 in the computation of the period of limitation prescribed for the completion of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irtue of Expln. I, cl. (iv) 153 was not available in the present assessment. It follows, that when the revised return had been filed on 22nd Feb., 1983, the assessment should have been completed by 22nd Feb., 1984 as contemplated by the provisions of s. 153(1)(c) of the Act. Admittedly the assessment order was passed on 29th June, 1984 and therefore, on the face of it, it was barred by limitation. We think we are supported in our conclusions by the ratio in the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. We may further add that on identical facts, Ahmedabad Bench-C of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd. (ITA No. 1975/Ahd/85) has taken a similar view following the decision of the Special ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
