Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the provisions of Section 30(3) which provides limitation for initiation of proceedings for assessment in case of escaped assessment as well as limitation for completion of proceedings by passing assessment order is not applicable in case where Appellate Authority passed the order of remand in case where original proceedings were initiated under Section 30 of the Act of 1994 and for passing assessment order, limitation will be as given in Section 29(8)(b). Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a case of Shiv Ratan v. CTO Bikaner WLC (Raj) 1993 (2) page 374 in an identical facts and circumstances of present case where the matter was remanded by the Revisional Authority to the Assessing Authority and when notices were issued by the Assessing Authority under Sectionl2 of the Act of 1954, (under the Act which was applicable at that time) this Court took the view that in fact proceedings are under Section 10(b)(2) and not under Section 12.

12. Learned Counsel Shri Rajendra Mehta also assisted the Court and vehemently submitted that the limitation provided by Section 30(3) is; initially for initiation of proceedings under Section 30 of the Act and thereafter for its completion. Once the proceedings started within statutory period of limitation under Section 30 of the Act by the Assessing Authority it has to be completed within the period provided under Section 30(3) of the Act of 1994. Once the assessment order is passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 30, nothing remains to be done by Assessing Authority under Section 30 of the Act of 1994. It is also vehemently submitted though appeal lies to challenge the order of Assessing Authority passed under Section 30 and if the appellate authority set aside the assessment order passed under Section 30 by the Assessing Authority and remands the matter to Assessing Authority, and thereafter the Assessing Authority passes the assessment order then order is not under Section 30 but can pass order under section29 of the Act of 1994. It is also submitted that bar of limitation as provided under Section 30(3) of the Act of 1994 for initiation of proceeding under Section 30 of the Act of 1994 alone has been lifted by the second part of Section 30(3) which applies to cases where fresh proceedings is required to be taken by the Assessing Authority in pursuance of order of appellate authority as otherwise by the time appellate authority passes any order or issue any direction or need arises to initiate proceeding under Section 30 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 30(1) of the Act of 1994 the period of limitation for initiation of proceedings under Section 30 may expire. To meet with this eventuality the bar of limitation only for initiation of proceedings has been lifted by the same section i.e. Section 30(3) of the Act of 1994. By this, the Assessing Authority gets the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 30 of the Act of 1994 in the cases for limitation for initiation of proceedings under Section 30 has expired. The limitation for completion of assessment in such cases is provided under Section 29(8) only and by the limitation provided for completion of assessment after remand has not been lifted by the second part of Section 30(3) of the Act otherwise there will be no limitation for passing assessment order by the Assessing Authority in such cases.

19. Sub-section (3) of Section 30 starts with language "no notice of Sub-section 1 and 2 shall be issued in respect of any escaped assessment for any year...." Therefore, it prescribed limitation for initiation of proceedings under Sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 30 alone. The Sub-section 3 of Section 30 further provides that "no assessment under the said Sub-sections shall be completed after expiry of 8 years...." Therefore, Sub-section (3) of Section 30 further prescribed period within which assessment order is required to be passed under Sub-section 1 and 2 of Section 30. (Separate limitation is provided for assessment order under Section 29). Thereafter it has been provided "but this limitation shall not be applicable to any assessment to be made in consequence of or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in order passed by an Appellate Authority or Tax Board or a Competent Court." Here also the exception to the limitation above in Sub-section (3) of Section 30 as prescribed for initiation as well as for completion of assessment under Section 30 has been lifted by specifically mentioning "this limitation" shall not be applicable if "any assessment to be made in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in order passed by an appellate authority or Tax Board or a competent court". It is significant that in Sub-section (3) of Section 30 provision like as provided in Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section 8 of Section 29 has not been provided for extension of time for making assessment after remand order by the order of the Commissioner. The obvious reason and difference is that in Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section 8 of Section 29 outer limitation has been given for passing assessment order even in cases where assessment is needed because of remand order in assessment proceedings under Section 29 whereas in cases, the assessment is required because of order of remand or direction etc. of appellate authority, the Tax Board or the court, initially arising from proceedings under Section 30, there is no outer limit for passing assessment order as has been lifted by latter part of Sub-section 3 of Section 30. Here also it is not provided that only the limitation provided for initiation of proceedings under Sub-section (1) and (2) restricted by first part of Sub-section (3) of Section 30 alone has been lifted. The first part of Sub-section (3) of Section 30 prescribes two limitations, one for initiation of proceedings and another for passing assessment order. The limitation prescribed by Section 30 for initiation and for its completion cannot be bifurcated for the purpose of latter part of Sub-section (3) of Section 30 by which limitation only for completion of the proceedings under Section 30 stands lifted and to make the matter to be governed by Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (8) of Section 29. The words "this limitation shall not be applicable to any assessment made" lifted the bar against making assessment within prescribed period of limitation in case assessment is needed after remand order, is clear from the bare reading of Sub-section 3 itself and there is no ambiguity. Therefore, from reading of these two sections: Section 29(8)(b) and Section 30(3) of the Act of 1994 it is clear that the limitations for two matters have been prescribed separately. Simply because of fact that there will be no outer limit for deciding the matter after remand order in the proceedings arising out of Section 30, the limitation cannot be imposed by judgment for competition of assessment.

23. The limitation for completion of assessment is provided separately under sexcti6n 29(8)a, (aa) and (b) and that is for assessment under Section 29. Whereas limitation for completion of assessment under Section 30 is provided separately under Sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act of 1994. Limitation for completion of assessment under Section 29, when matter is remanded by the appellate authority is given in Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (8) of Section 29 separately where the assessment is required in consequence of, or to give effect to any direction or direction contained in order passed by an appellate authority or Tax Board or competent court. Time given under Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (8) of Section 29 for completion of assessment after remand can be extended by the commissioner for the reasons to be recorded and that extension may be up to period of six months only. Here is the material distinction between Section 29(8)(b) and Section 30(3).