AJAY TEWARI,J. - (1.) 2007 passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 3874/Del/2006 for the asst. yr. 1993 -94 proposing following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are perverse that there is no finding or direction in the order passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Rohtak ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the assessments framed for the asst. yrs. 1993 -94 to 1997 -98 were void ab initio being beyond the period of limitation ignoring the provisions of s. 150(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself in declaring the assessments for the asst. yrs. 1993 -94 to 1997 -98 as void ab initio, whereas the proceedings under s. 148 were initiated read with provisions of s. 150(1) ? 4. Whether the initiation of proceedings under s. 148 read with s. 150(1) can be declared barred by limitation in view of the protection available to the Revenue under s. 150(1) of the IT Act, 1961 - yrs. 1993 -94 to 1997 -98 on the ground that there would be no period of limitation since the matter fell within the ambit of s. 150(1) of the Act and the consequent proceedings to frame assessment.
(2.) IN appeal, the learned CIT held that the effective date for invoking s. 150(1) was the date of probate of the mother of limitation but that the notices for the subsequent years and the consequent assessments were valid. The Revenue carried the matter up in second appeal which was dismissed holding as follows : "... once I have held that no finding or direction has been given by the Hon'ble Judge in his order, the issue of notice under s. 148 are to be regulated by s. 149 of the IT Act as in the order passed by the Hon'ble Judge there is no finding or direction to be basis for a notice within the extended period under s. 150(1)."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of K.M. Sharma vs. ITO (2002) 174 CTR (SC) 210 : (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC). We find that the said judgment is not applicable since it laid down that the extension of limitation brought about by the amendment to s. 150 sub -s. (1) would not give life to those cases for which action was time - barred on the date from which the amendment was brought into effect. In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the grant of probate by the Addl. District Judge, Rohtak had no consequence to the assessment placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC). The In this view of the matter we are unable to hold that a substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.;