The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar v. M/S J.m.p. Manufacturing Co., Preet Nagar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R. No. 238 and 239 of 1995 DATE OF DECISION: 7.7.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar ..........Applicant Versus M/s J.M.P. Manufacturing Co., Preet Nagar,..........RespondentJalandhar CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocatefor the applicant. Mr. Rajan Verma, Advocatefor the respondent. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, hasreferred following question of law for opinion of this Court, arising out of itscommon order dated 9.3.1994 in ITA Nos. 221 & 381 (ASR)/1985 inrespect of assessment year 1981-82:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that thereference made under Section 144B of the Income TaxAct, 1961 was bad in law and is barred by limitation.: 2.In respect of assessment year 1981-82, the assessee filedreturn on 23.5.1981. The assessment was completed on 8.8.1984 underSection 143 (3)/144B(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), I.T.R. No. 238 and 239 of 1995 which was beyond a period of two years from the end of financial year inquestion stipulated under Section 153 of the Act i.e. 31.3.1984. TheTribunal held that the order of the Assessing Officer was barred bylimitation. 3.Learned counsel for the revenue submits that identicalquestion has been adjudicated upon by this Court in Commissioner ofIncome Tax Vs. Gheru Lal Bal Chand [1998] 233 ITR 82 (P&H) and afterreferring to Explanation 1, clause (iv) below Section 153, it was held thatperiod upto 180 days from the date on which the draft assessment order isforwarded by the Income Tax Officer to the assessee upto the date onwhich directions are received is to be excluded. In the present case, thedraft assessment order was prepared on 10.3.1984 and permission wasreceived from the IAC on 3.8.1984, as noticed in the order of assessment.If this period is excluded, the period taken in obtaining permission beingmore than the period by which period intervened between the last date bywhich assessment was to be made and the date on which assessment wasmade. Accordingly, the assessment had to be treated within time. 4.In view of the above, the question is answered in favour of therevenue and against the assessee. 5.Reference is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 07, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No