9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der s. 144B on 27-7-1982, which were received by the assessee on 5-8-1982 and by the ITO on 30-7-1982. The final order of assessment was made on 12-8-1982. The assessee's contention before the CIT(A) that the ITO had only one day after receiving the IAC's directions to pass the final order and having taken more period than that, the assessment made on 12-8-1982 was barred by limitation. The CIT(A) did not accept the contention as, according to him, the time taken in section 144B proceedings was 180 days commencing from the date of forwarding of the order by the ITO to the date when the ITO receives the IAC's directions. Such overall time limit is to be brought into play only in circumstances where the limitation itself is sought to be exten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by limitation. 4. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that the limitation is to be reckoned with reference to 180 days counted from 31st March, 1982, the normal time limit for the completion of the assessment and if an order was made within that time, i.e. up to 30th September, 1982, as has been held by the CIT(A), the assessment could not be said to be barred by limitation. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Reno Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals Cosmetics (P.) Ltd. [1984] 10 ITD 849 (Bom.) and Heritage Estates (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1985] 11 ITD 519 (Bom.). 5. We have heard the parties and considered their rival submissions. As provided in section 153, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns from the IAC under s. 144B. In these circumstances, he could have completed the assessment latest by 1st August, 1982. The order of assessment made on 12-8-1982 therefore, was barred by limitation. We hold accordingly. 6. The two Tribunal decisions relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative have no application to the present case. In the case of Reno Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals Cosmetics (P.) Ltd., the directions of the IAC were received by the ITO more than 180 days thereafter and the question before the Tribunal for consideration was where the IAC took more than 180 days for giving directions to the ITO regarding completion of the assessment referred to him, the exclusion of time for completion of the assessment would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, i.e. the ITO had 7 days available to him for completing the assessment after the instructions were received from the IAC on 25-9-82. In other words, he could have completed the assessment six days after 25-9-1982, i.e. up to 1st October, 1982. In these circumstances, the assessment completed by the ITO on 27-9-1982 was held to be within the time limit. 8. We may state that in the instructions issued by the CBDT being Instruction No. 1167 (XXIV/1/14-Sections 144A and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and clarification regarding), the Board has understood the provisions in the manner in which we have understood the same. In the illustration given, the copy of the draft order for assessment year 1975-76 was forwarded on 10-3-1978 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
