- (1.) THE CIT, Agra, has filed the present application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for a direction to the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the following two questions of law for opinion to this Court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment orders in relation to the asst. yrs. 1980 -81 to 1986 -87 are clearly beyond the period of limitation especially when the period from 1st Jan., 1990, being the date of filing the settlement petition to 6th Aug., 1991, being the date of receipt of order under S. 245DD by the CIT will have to be excluded and after such exclusion the time available for assessment was up to 5th Nov., 1992 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessment order in relation to the asst. yrs. 1980 -81 to 1986 -87 are clearly beyond the period of limitation especially when the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad stayed the proceedings under S. 147/148 of the IT Act, 1961, vide order dt. 22nd Feb., 1989, thus a period of ten months and seven days are also available for assessment beyond 5th Nov., 1991 ?"
(2.) WE have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the CIT and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee -opposite party. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present application are that for the asst. year 1980 -81 the assessment order was passed under S. 143(3)/148 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on 30th Oct., 1992. The assessee -opposite party made an application purporting to be under S. 154 of the Act contending that the assessment order was void and unlawful as the assessment was completed after the limitation had expired. The AO did not accept the plea of the assessee and held that the assessment was completed well within time in view of the provisions of s. 153(3), Expln. 1(v) of the Act. Consequently, the application filed by the assessee -opposite party under S. 154 of the Act was rejected.
(3.) THE first appeal filed by the assessee -opposite party was rejected by the CIT(A). However, in the second appeal filed by the assessee -opposite party, the Tribunal vide order dt. 5th March, 1997, had allowed the appeal and had set aside the assessment order on the ground that it had been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for making the assessment for the assessment year in question. The Tribunal also declined to refer the questions of law proposed by the CIT for the opinion to this Court.;