Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Panaji And Another v. The Goa State Co-Op.bank Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.Civil Application (Review) No.34 of 2017 in Writ Petition No.1087/2017 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1), Panaji and another. Applicants Versus The Goa State Co-op.Bank Ltd. Through Its Managing Director Respondent … Ms. Susan Linhares, Advocate for the Applicants.Mr. Rana Revonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : M.S.SONAK, J. DATED :27[th] DECEMBER, 2017. P.C. Heard Ms. S.Linhares, learned counsel for the Income TaxDepartment and Mr. Rana, learned counsel for the originalpetitioner. 2.Though, this petition, is styled as a Review Petition, thereis a common ground that what is necessary is not some reviewbut only a clarification. 3. This Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No.1087/2017,in paragraph 2 has observed as follows:- “The Petitioner will attend the hearingbefore the Respondents Officer on 15December 2017 and thereupon theRespondents Officer will pass necessaryorders as per law in view of the law laiddown by the Hon'ble Apex Court inG.K.N.Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs.Income Tax Officer and others (2591ITR 18SC) and Allana Cold Storage Ltd.Vs. Income Tax Officer and others 2006287 ITR 1 (Bom)., the effect to theorders will be given after the period offour weeks as precedent” 4.Ms. S.Linhares points out that in terms of Section153 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no order of assessment,reassessment or recomputation shall be made under Section147 after the expiry of nine months from the end of the financialyear in which the notice under Section 148 was served. Shesubmits that this period ends on 31[st] December, 2017. Shesubmits that since, there is a direction that the AssessmentOrder is to be given effect to after a period of four weeks, suchperiod, will transgress the stipulated date of 31[st] December,2017. Accordingly, she requests for a suitable clarification. 5.Mr. Rivonkar points out that the relief granted to theoriginal petitioner in terms of paragraph 2 of the order dated 13[th] December, 2017, is entirely inconsistent with the similarrelief granted by the Division Bench in case of Allana ColdStorage Ltd. Vs. Income-Tax Officer and others (supra). 6. In any case, he submits that, even if, anyclarification is received, the same ought not to prejudice theright of the petitioner to challenge the assessment order, incase, the same is unfavourable to the petitioner. 7. Upon due consideration of the matter, it transpires that neither of the parties have any serious disputes as regardsthe relief granted in terms of paragraph 2 of the order dated 13[th]December, 2017. The anxiety of the Department, however, isthat no technical objection should be raised by the petitioners,since, in this case, the assessment order, will have given effectto post 31[st] December, 2017. 8.If the provisions of Section 153 (4) (ii) of the IncomeTax Act are taken into consideration, then, there is no necessityfor such anxiety. In any case, it is clarified that the period offour weeks during which, the department, is restrained fromgiving effect to the assessment order, will have to be excludedfor the purpose of determining the limitation, as prescribedunder Section 153 (2) of the Income Tax Act. This means that the Department, will have liberty to give effect of theassessment order post 31[st] December, 2017, without fear of anytechnical objections of this score. The position is clarifiedaccordingly. 8.If the provisions of Section 153 (4) (ii) of the IncomeTax Act are taken into consideration, then, there is no necessityfor such anxiety. In any case, it is clarified that the period offour weeks during which, the department, is restrained fromgiving effect to the assessment order, will have to be excludedfor the purpose of determining the limitation, as prescribedunder Section 153 (2) of the Income Tax Act. This means that the Department, will have liberty to give effect of theassessment order post 31[st] December, 2017, without fear of anytechnical objections of this score. The position is clarifiedaccordingly. 9.It is further clarified that nothing in thisclarification/order or for that matter the original order shall inany way, affect or prejudice the rights of the original petitionerto challenge the assessment order on merits in case, suchassessment order is unfavourable to the petitioner. Further,nothing in this clarification, will even remotely affect or prejudicethe right of the petitioner to challenge the order by which theirobjections may have been rejected. 10. With the clarification, as aforesaid, this petition isdisposed of. 11.All concerned to act on the basis of the authenticatedcopy of the order. M.S.SONAK, J. mukund