9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise Taxation Department w.e.f. 1st April, 1988 and in order to obtain licence, the partners of the firm contributed capital on 28th March, 1988. However, the AO observed that the assessee failed to explain the source of investment aggregating to Rs. 2.45 lakhs made by the partners in the firm. Therefore, while completing assessment for the asst. yr. 1989-90 in the case of the firm, the AO made an addition of Rs. 2.45 lakhs. The assessee impugned the additions in appeal before the CIT(A). It was submitted before the CIT(A) that the investments were made on 28th March, 1988 and as per provisions of s. 69 of the IT Act, the addition, if any, could have-been made in the asst. yr. 1988-89 and not in the asst. Yr. 1989-90. The relevant findings r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the same for the reasons stated by us. We find no merit in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue and the same are rejected. Consequent upon the same, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the order of the learned CIT(A) is sustained." The Revenue has accepted the findings of the Tribunal and no further appeal/reference application to the High Court was filed. 4. Thereafter, relying on the order of the Tribunal and by considering the fact that these were directions of the Tribunal that addition, if any, could have been made only in the asst. yr. 1988-89, when the AO issued a notice under s. 148 on 21st Feb., 2001, the assessee failed to file the return for the assessment year under reference. Thereafte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Asr/1993 for the asst. yr. 1989-90. A copy of the same was placed on my file. He submitted that the notice issued under s. 148 by the AO was barred by time and, therefore, the assessment completed by the AO deserves to be quashed. 7. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below. 8. I have heard both the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions with reference to facts, evidence and material on record. From the facts discussed above, it is obvious that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for the asst. yr. 1989-90 on the ground that the investment having been made on 29th March, 1988, the same falls outside the accounting period releva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction and void ab initio. Before parting with this issue, it must be mentioned that even though the assessment year involved was 1988-89 and amended provisions came into being only w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, i.e., asst. yr. 1989-90, the law applicable would be one, as it existed on the date of issue of notice. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Navketan Enterprises vs. CIT (2001) 169 CTR (Jharkhand) 562 : (2001) 250 ITR 508 (Jharkhand). In the light of these facts and circumstances of the case and legal position discussed above, I quash the assessment order as bad in law and resultant order of the CIT(A) is also quashed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal are allowed. 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
