Case Law Details
If we read sub Section (2) of Section 150, it provided that sub Section (1) thereof will not apply to a case of assessment, reassessment or recomputation of income, if it related to assessment year in respect of which assessment, reassessment etc. could not have been made at the time when the order, which was the subject matter of appeal, reference or revision was made, by reason of the time limits fixed u/s 153 for making the reassessment, it would be seen that sub section (2) of Section 150 does not refer to Section 153. It only refers to “any other provisions limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken.
The word “taken” refers only to initiation of proceedings and not to completion. The time limit for initiation of such proceedings are contained in Section 149 & 150 while the time limit for completion of such proceedings are mentioned in sub Section (2) & (3) of Section 153 just as Section 150 is the proviso to Section 149, sub Section (3) of Section 153 is a proviso to sub section (2) thereof.
Plain language of sub-section (2) of Section 150 clearly restricts the application of sub-section (1) of Section 150 to enable the authorities to reopen the assessments which have not already become final on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed u/s 149(2) of the Act.
Relevant Extract of the Judgment
7. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving direction to the AO for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, which not subject matter of appeal before him. The ld. AR took us through the provisions of Section 251 and submitted that according to section 251, the ld. CIT(A) may confirm, reduce, enhance for annulling the assessment or may conduct enquiry as he may think fit for the year under appeal, but he cannot give any direction for the assessment years, which are not in appeal before him. In support of this contention, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Indore Bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Om Prakash Bagdia, Ujjain vs. ACIT, Ujjain, (2005) 4 ITJ 106 (Indore Tribunal) (copy placed on record), wherein it was held that the ld. CIT(A) while directing the AO to issue notice u/s 148 after recording reasons shown by him as transgression of his jurisdiction and above all when an issue is regarding the validity of report of DVO and the assessment order based on the same, has already been decided by the Tribunal in other assessment years, wherein also the same DVO’s report was relied for making the assessment. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee further relied on the decision of Lilasons Industries Limited vs. ACIT, Bhopal, (2016) 29 ITJ 261 (Indore Trib.) dated 30.06.2016 (copy filed), wherein relying on the plethora of judgments, it was observed as under 7-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
