Bombay High Court
Rikhabdas Jhaverchand vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 15 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001]249ITR774(BOM)
Bench: S.H. Kapadia, A.P. Shah
JUDGMENT
1. The short point, which arises for consideration, is whether Section 153(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable to the facts of this case.
2. On March 12, 1984, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the petitioners for the assessment year 1981-82 at Rs. 1,84,280 after disallowance of bad debts of Rs. 78,166. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the assessee. However, by order dated January 10, 1989, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a specific direction to verify the correctness of the claim by calling for information from the debtors or by getting the details verified through the Income-tax Officer, who assessed the debtors. With this specific direction, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and restored the matter relating only to bad debts to the file of the Assessing Officer. Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal contained in its order dated January 10, 1989, the Assessing Officer completed the fresh assessment under Section 143 read with Section 254. This was on July 2, 1996. This was after making necessary enquiries as per the direction of the Tribunal. Against the said order dated July 2, 1996, the assessee filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, inter alia, contending that the fresh order passed by the Assessing Officer on July 2, 1996, constituted fresh assessment as contemplated by Section 153(2A) and since the said order was passed after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the Tribunal passed the order under Section 254, the said order dated July 2, 1996, was beyond the time limit, i.e., March 31, 1991, and, therefore, it was liable to be set aside. This contention has been rejected by the revisional authority vide impugned order dated September 16, 1999. Being aggrieved, the present appeal came to be filed by the assessee.
3. Section 153(1) prescribes the time limit for completion of assessments. Section 153(2A), however, begins with a non obstante clause. Section 153(2A), inter alia, lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 153, an order of fresh assessment under Section 254, setting aside/cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order cancelling the assessment is passed under Section 254. On the basis of Section 153(2A), it has been urged on behalf of the assessee that in the present matter, the Tribunal had set aside the assessment vide order dated January 10, 1989. This was under Section 254. Therefore, it was submitted that the fresh assessment order ought to have been passed on or before March 31, 1991. It was contended that if one reads the order of the Tribunal dated January 10, 1989, it is clear that the Tribunal had ordered fresh assessment. Hence, it was contended that Section 153(2A) stood attracted.
4. We do not find any merit in the said contention. Section 153(2A) refers to an order of fresh assessment being passed pursuant to the assessment order being set aside by the Tribunal under Section 254. On the facts, the revisional authority rightly came to the conclusion that the Tribunal in its order dated January 10, 1989, had only directed the Assessing Officer to verify the correctness of the claim for bad debts made by the assessee by calling for information from the debtors or by getting the details verified through the Income-tax Officer, who assessed the debtors. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order of assessment as contemplated by Section 153(2A). On the facts, Section 153(3) clearly stood attracted. Section 153(3), inter alia, lays down that the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 153 shall not apply to assessments, reassessments and recomputations made on the assessee in order to give effect to any direction contained in an order under Section 254 of the Act. This provision is, however, subject to the provisions of Section 153(2A). In other words, if a matter falls under Section 153(2A) then, the fresh order of assessment shall be passed within the prescribed period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order is passed by the Tribunal under Section 254. However, on the facts, Section 153(2A) is not attracted. The case falls under Section 153(3). Hence, the revisional authority was right in passing the impugned order.
5. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of.