- (1.) Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 13766/2011.
(2.) The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Central, Ahmedabadthe appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the Revenue"), is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue affirming the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "ITAT") holding that the assessment order dated 01.09.1984 passed by the Assessing Officer in respect of Assessment Year 1981-82 was time barred. We may mention at the outset that in terms of Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), time limit for completion of the assessment to be made under Sections 143 or 144 of the Act is at any time after the expiry of two years from the end of the Assessment Year in which the income is first assessable, where Assessment Year is commencing on or after 01.04.1969. On this reckoning, the date by which assessment should have been carried out by the Assessing Officer in respect of Assessment Year 1981-82 was 31.03.1984. The assessment order was, however, passed on 01.09.1984. The Revenue claimed that this assessment order was still within the prescribed period of limitation because of the reason that on 13.03.1984 draft assessment order was passed pertaining to the aforesaid Assessment Year and forwarded to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Central Range-II, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the IAC") on 13.03.1984 (i.e. before 31.03.1984). The IAC issued instructions under Section 144B of the Act on 31.08.1984 and based on that the Assessing Officer framed the assessment on 01.09.1984 under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 144B of the Act.
(3.) The position that was taken by the Revenue was that the period from 13.03.1984 to 31.03.1984, when the matter was before the IAC, had to be excluded while computing the period of limitation of two years and once the period is excluded the assessment order was passed within the period of limitation. The contention of the respondent/assessee, on the other hand, was that, by order dated 29.08.1983, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT") passed under Section 125A(1) of the Act had assigned all the powers and functions of the Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the ITO") to the IAC. This order was passed specifically in the case of the respondent herein which became effective from 01.09.1983. It was their submission that once, by virtue of the aforesaid order dated 29.08.1983 passed by the CIT, the IAC is conferred concurrent jurisdiction, along with ITO, empowering him to make assessment order in the case of the assessee, there was no question of forwarding the draft assessment order by the ITO to the IAC and this unnecessary and superfluous exercise would not enure to the advantage of the Revenue giving it the benefit of the period from 13.03.1984 to 31.08.1984 while calculating the period of limitation of two years provided under Section 153 of the Act. In nutshell, the submission was that the conferment of the powers of the Assessing Officer upon the IAC, he is in the same position as the ITO and draft assessment order could not be sent to him who was brought at par with the ITO.;