9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dt. 19th Sept., 1984 being barred by limitation laid down under s. 153 (1) (a) (iii) be held to be void in view of decision of Special Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (1985) 23 TTJ (All) 196". 4. After hearing both the parties, we have admitted the aforesaid ground as the issuer involved therein, goes to the root of the matter and for deciding the same, no additional material is required that that already available on record. We, therefore, requested both the parties to make there submissions in this regard. 5. The material facts are are : The ITO, Central Circle, Jamnagar had jurisdiction over the assessee since quite some time. The IAC Central Range-II Ahmedabad was having overall charge in respect of seven ITO including th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80 days is case the assessment was to be framed under s. 143(3) read with s. 144B of the Act. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that once an order under s. 125A of the Act was passed giving the IAC concurrent jurisdiction, the provisions of s. 144B of the Act, would not be applicable in the instant case by virtue of sub-s (7) of that section. Therefor, the time limit for passing the assessment order under s. 143(3) would be up to 31st March 1984. Since in the instant case, the assessment was framed on 19th Sept., 1984 the same was hopelessly based by limitation and deserves to be annulled as was done by the Tribunal (Special Bench) in the case of Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1985) 23 TTJ (All) 196 (SB) : (1985) 13 ITD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. 8. The ld. representative for the Revenue, on the hand, justified the assessment framed on facts and circumstances obtaining in the case of the assessee are distinguishable from the one considered by the Tribunal in the case of Saray Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. In the assessee case there was only one IAC having both administrative as well as s. 144B jurisdiction over the ITO. While in the case of Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., the ITO was to work under two IAC's viz. IAC, Gorakpur and IAC, Allhabad, who was given concurrent powers under s. 125A of the Act. In the case of Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd., the IAC, Allahabad had given directions/guidance to the ITO. While in the assessee's case on such directions/guidanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from IAC, Central Range-II Ahmedabad, to the ITO, Central Circle, Jamnagar in response to his aforesaid letter giving guidelines on specific issues of taxability on refund of excise duty, allowability of deduction of selling commission and deduction under s. 55(1)(ii). (c) Letter No. CC/CR-2352/8384 dt. 5th Dec., 1983 from the ITO Central Circle, Jamnagar to IAC Central Range-II Ahmedabad, regarding allowability of selling commission on unrealised sales proceeds. (b) Letter NO. JUD-13-7/83-CR-II dt. 12th Dec., 1993 from the IAC, Central Circle Jamnagar, in reply to his aforesaid letter." 10. It would appear from the above material that the stand taken on behalf of the assessee is correct. We wish that the ld. representative for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
