- (1.) THE main question involved in this reference is, 'Whether in case, where two heads as contemplated in Explanation-1 to section 153 (Section 153 explanation-1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) are present for excluding the time spent during the period mentioned therein, then can the benefit of both or only of one of them be availed of ?'. THE FACTS
(2.) M/s Luxco Electronics, Allahabad (the Assessee) manufactures and sells loudspeaker and its electronic components. It filed its return for the assessment year (AY) 1979-80 on 29.8.1979 before the Income Tax Officer, A Ward, SIC Allahabad (the ITO). He was the assessing officer for the Assessee. The commissioner Income Tax (the Commissioner) had earlier issued a notification dated 16.11.1979 conferring concurrent jurisdiction under Section 125A of the Act on the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Allahabad (IAC), with the ITO. The ITO by its order dated 1.8.1981 referred the case for the special audit under Section 142 (2A) of the Act. The audit report was received on 16.1.1982.
(3.) THEREAFTER, as the variation on the income was to exceed more than one lakh of rupees {the amount fixed by the Board under Section 144 B(1) of the Act}, a draft order was prepared on 26.8.1982 and was served on the Assessee on 27.8.1982. The Assessee filed his objections. Thereafter the draft order alongwith objections was sent to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (the IAC), who issued his directions on 22.1.1983. Subsequently, the ITO passed an assessment order on 28.1.1983 assessing the income of the Assessee to '5,44,210/-.;