9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is that the ITO has completed the assessment in the present case after the limitation period was over. It may be stated that for the assessment year 1977-78, the ITO completed the assessment on 24-9-1980 under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. Amongst other things he noted that a draft assessment order was made and forwarded to the assessee under section 144B(1) vide his letter dated 24-1-1980 which was received by the assessee on 28-1-1980. The assessee sent his objection to the variation of the total income as returned by the assessee vide his letter dated 8-2-1980. There after the ITO forwarded the draft assessment order along with the assessee's objection to the IAC on 21-2-1980 under section 144B(4). The IAC in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction. This ground of appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, this appeal before us. 4. It is submitted by the assessee's learned counsel that the Commissioner (Appeals) misconstrued the provisions of the above section and if the facts have been correctly appreciated, the Commissioner (Appeals) would have found that the assessment was barred by limitation and the same requires to be annulled. It is urged that since the jurisdiction matter was involved, the provisions should be strictly, construed. In the instant case it is urged that the IAC has taken more than 180 days and, therefore, the action of the ITO in pursuance of the direction of the IAC was beyond time. According to the assessee's learned counsel, the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the ITO forwards the draft order to the assessee under section 144B(1) and ending with the date on which the ITO receives directions from the IAC or in any case where no objections to the draft order are received from the assessee, a period of 30 days shall be excluded. In other words, the period taken by the IAC in giving the direction to the ITO under section 144B(4) subject to the maximum period of 180 days shall be excluded. In computing the period of limitation the ITO would be entitled to take into account the period of 180 days only and not the entire period taken by the IAC beyond the period of 180 days. It is not the case of the assessee before us that the order passed by the ITO on 24-9-1980 was beyond the prescribed period o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee is that the Commissioner (Appeals) was wrong in ignoring the ground disputing the rejection of books of account and the estimate of income by applying the proviso to section 145(1) of the Act and that the book results have been rejected without specifically mentioning under which proviso to the Act the book result was rejected. It is also the appeal by the assessee that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the ground in his appellate order. 8. Briefly speaking, the assessee complied with the notice issued under section 143(2). Books of account were produced and were examined by the ITO. The ITO discussed the different sources of income and the different contracts carried on by the assessee during the year and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... briefly narrated above. Before us copy of grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is placed in the paper book from which it is seen that the assessee took up this point before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the application of proviso to section 145. It was also submitted before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the ITO had rejected the book results without specifically mentioning under which section of the Act the book results were rejected. It is the appeal by the assessee before us that no specific defect was detected in the accounts and, therefore, the book result should not have been rejected. The defects pointed out related only to hiring charges, low drawings, etc. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Commissioner (Appeals). This involved investigation and verification of facts before one could come to any conclusion whether section 145(1) or 145(2) would be applicable. There is no finding in the present case that any of the entries in the books of account was not correct, there was no finding that the assessee was not employing a method of accounting and there was no finding that such method of accounting had been regularly employed by the assessee. In our opinion, the findings of facts in respect of the accounts, the method employed by the assessee would be very material for deciding the present dispute before us since the Commissioner (Appeals) has not dealt with the specific grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. It is nec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
