- (1.) These three appeals have been filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 "hereinafter called the "Act, 1961", against the order dated 12/8/2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeals filed by the assessee and cancelling the assessment for all the three years. All the three appeals raise the same question of law and facts, hence they are being decided by this common judgment. It is sufficient to note the facts of Appeal No.19/2010 for deciding the question of law raised in these appeals. Search and seizure operations were conducted on 19/1/1989 at the business premises of firm and residential premises of partners including that of the assessee Late Chandra Bhan Bansal. The assessee was not assessed to tax earlier. Notices under Section 147 (a)/148 of the Act, 1961 were issued to the assessee on 08/11/1989 for the Assessment Years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1989-90 requiring the assessee to file return. In response to the notices issued to the assessee, return was filed only for the Assessment Year 1989-90. Challenging the notice dated 08/11/1989, the assessee filed writ petition No.278/1992, for the Assessment Year 1986-1987 and 1987-88 in this Court. A Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 24/3/1992, stayed the re-assessment proceedings. A Writ Petition No.162/1992 was filed challenging the further proceedings for the Assessment Year 1989-90. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24/3/1992 had passed interim order staying the notices for the Assessment Year 1988-89. Both the above writ petitions were dismissed on 01/8/1995 on the ground that after the death of the sole petitioner, legal representatives of the deceased were not brought on the record. After dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions, the proceedings for assessment were completed on 04/1/1996 by the Assessing Officer. Against the order dated 04/1/1996, appeals were filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 10/12/1996, restored the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for providing proper opportunity to the legal heirs of the assessee. Notices were issued to the legal heirs of the assessee to attend the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. In response to the summons/notices issued to the legal heirs of the assessee the counsel for the legal representatives appeared. One of the objection taken before the Assessing Officer was that the interim order granted by the Allahabad High Court was vacated on 01/8/1995, hence the original assessment was to be completed within 60 days i.e. up to 30/9/1995 in view of Explanation 1 (ii) to Section 153 (3) of the Act, 1961, whereas the assessment having been made on 04/1/1996 was barred by time. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 26/3/1999 decided all the three appeals. The Appellate Authority rejected the plea of the assessee that assessment is barred by time, however for statistical purposes, the appeals were partly allowed. The order passed by the appellate authority dated 26/3/1999 was challenged by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Two sets of appeals were filed by the assessee pertaining to the three assessment years challenging the order dated 26/3/1999 and 17/1/2003, respectively. The Tribunal heard the parties and allowed both the appeals. The Tribunal relying on Explanation 1 (ii) to Section 153 of the Act, 1961 held that the assessment order dated 04/1/1996 was beyond the time prescribed under Section 153 (3) of the Act, 1961. The above three appeals have been filed against the common order of the Tribunal dated 12/8/2009. In all the three appeals only one substantial question of law was framed on which question all the appeals were admitted. The question of law framed in all these appeals is as follows: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessments made by the A.O. Was barred by limitation on 30-09-95 in view of the proviso to Explanation 1 to Section 153 (2) of the Act?"
(2.) We have heard Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the assessee.
(3.) Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the assessment order dated 04/1/1996 was not beyond 60 days and it was within sixty days from the date when the order of the High Court dated 01/8/1995 vacating the interim order was communicated. He submits that the period of limitation for making the assessment is to be reckoned not from the date of the vacation of the interim order, rather from the date the order of the High Court vacating the stay order has been communicated to the Department. He submits that the order vacating the interim could be communicated to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigations) on 18/12/1995, hence the assessment order dated 04/1/1996 is well within time. In addition to the above submission, Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue made one more submission i.e. the assessment order dated 04/1/1996 having been made in consequence to the order of the High Court dated 01/8/1995, dismissing the writ petitions of the assessee, there shall be no period of limitation as per Section 153 (3) (ii) of the Act, 1961.;