MAINA DEVI NAHATA Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
LAWS(IT)-1994-6-6
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 29,1994

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.V. Easwar, Judicial Member - (1.) IN this appeal by the assessee we are concerned with two grounds. The first is that the assessment is barred by limitation. The second is that even on merits the addition made is to be deleted.
(2.) The appeal arises under these circumstances: The assessment was first completed on 28-3-1981 under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In that assessment an addition of Rs. 1 lakh was made under the head "Other sources". In the assessment order itself it is recorded that the assessment was being completed ex parte since there is no time to hear the assessee. There was an appeal to the CIT(A) who set aside the assessment and restored the same to the ITO. This order was passed on 31-5-1983. There was a further appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal. The contention of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the CIT(A) should have deleted the addition instead of setting aside the assessment and restoring it to the ITO. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A). The order of the Tribunal was passed on 31-1-1985. In the meantime on 27-7-1983, i.e., after the order of the CIT(A) setting aside the assessment and before the order of the Tribunal, the ITO issued a notice calling upon the assessee to submit certain details in connection with the return of income. This is obviously a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Apparently no progress was made for some time. Three more notices were issued on 25-7-1985, 24-2-1987 and 9-3-1987. Ultimately the assessment was completed on 31-3-1987. The ITO purported to frame the assessment under Section 143(3), read with Section 254. In this assessment also the addition of Rs. 1 lakh was made under the head "Other sources".
(3.) THE assessee carried the fresh assessment made on 31-3-1987 in appeal before the CIT(A). THE first contention on behalf of the assessee was that the assessment was barred by limitation prescribed by Section 153(2A) of the Act. According to the assessee the fresh assessment ought to have been completed on or before 31-3-1986, computing the period of two years prescribed by the section from the end of the financial year (31-3-1984) in which the order of the CIT(A) setting aside the assessment was received by the CIT. THE CIT(A) did not accept the contention. According to him, the limitation started to run only from the order of the Tribunal and if the limitation is computed accordingly, the assessment order made on 31-3-1987 was within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 153(2A). THE addition of Rs. 1 lakh was confirmed on merits.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.