The Commissioner Of Income Tax 12 v. Mr.v.m. Shenai (Deceased)Thr.lr’smr. R.v. Shenai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.820 OF 2008WITHINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax 12: Appellant v/s Mr.V.M. Shenai (deceased)Thr.LR’sMr. R.V. Shenai : Respondent Mr. R.A. Vaishampayan Advocate for Appellant in ITXA820/2008 Mr. P.S. Sahadevan Advocate for appellant in ITXA810/2008 Ramnath Vijendra Shenai son and legal heir of VijendraManjunath Shenai respondent in both appeals Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 27.8.2008 .We have perused the order of the Tribunal dt. 18.12.2006 wherein in para 3 the Tribunal hasobserved, "We have considered the rival submissions. Wefind that the language of section 153(2) afterits amendment by the Finance Act of 2001 witheffect from 1.6.2001 is amply clear, whichprovides that the reassessment shall be madebefore the expiry of one year from the end ofFinancial year in which the notice u/s 148 wasserved. The proviso thereof provides thatwhere the notice u/s. 148 was served on orafter 1.4.99 but before 1.4.2000 suchreassessment may be made at any time up to31.3.2002. In this case, notice u/s. 148 dt.27.3.2001 was served on the assessee on29.3.2001 and therefore the reassessmentshould have been completed before 31.3.3003.The reassessment in this case was completed on 28.2.2003 and therefore, the reassessmentorder was passed beyond the limitation periodprovided under the act. The language ofsection 153(2) r.w.proviso makes it clear thatin case where notices u/s 148 have ben issuedafter 1.4.2000, the same will be covered bythe amended provision of law, which reducesthe period of reassessment from two to oneyear only. Accordingly, we hold that there isno mistake in the order of the CIT(A) inholding that the time limit available forconcluding the reassessment in this case wasclearly laid down by the amended provision ofsection 153(2) of the Act read with itsproviso and therefore, the reassessment orderis barred by limitation of time. In this viewof the matter, we hold that no interference inthe order of the CIT(A) is called for and inaccordingly confirmed and the ground of appealno.2 of the Revenue is dismissed.".We do not find any error or illegality in thereasoning adopted by the Tribunal. There isabsolutely no merit in the above appeal. The second question of law will not survive. Both the above Appeals therefore stand dismissed. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)