Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Limitation for assessment in N. C. E. (P.) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 June, 1997Matching Fragments
R. Acharya, A.M. 1 to 4. [These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.]
5. Grounds numbered 3, 4, 5 and 6 relate to grievance of the assessee that the assessment is barred by limitation under section 153(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the CIT (Appeals) was wrong in giving a finding that the assessment order was passed within the time prescribed under the statute. In order to appreciate the facts more clearly we reproduce the grounds hereunder :
"3. That the CIT (Appeals)-VI should have held that the assessment order is barred by limitation inasmuch as per the provisions of section 153(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer has to pass the order within one year from the date of filing of the Revised Return;
11. He also relied on the decision of the M.P. High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr. N. Shrivastava [1988] 170 ITR 556/38 Taxman 265 and submitted that according to the ratio of this decision once the return is voluntarily filed under section 139(4), the assessee has the right to file a subsequent return under that provision and limitation for assessment starts from the date of such subsequent return. He pointed out that in the case of Dr. N. Shrivastava (supra) where the assessee filed a return under section 139(4) for the assessment year 1978-79 on March 22, 1979, and subsequently filed another return on March 11, 1981 and the assessment order was passed on November 23, 1981, it was held that the assessment was not barred by limitation.
12. On the basis of these contentions and arguments as well as submissions, the learned DR urged that the assessment made on the facts and circumstances of the present case should be declared to have been made within the period of limitation.
13. In reply, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the return filed on 27-1-1987 cannot be treated as return under section 139(2) as the notice under section 139(2) was served on the assessee on 10-2-1987 and the assessee was asked to furnish the return within 30 days of the date of receipt of the notice. According to the learned counsel, the Assessing Officer had accepted the return as revised return and, therefore, it was not a rectified return as the figures were revised. Therefore, the contention of the learned DR is not correct. He further relied on the Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra (supra) and submitted that the limitation for making assessment has to be counted from the date on which the second revised return is filed and in that case as the revised return was filed on 8th February, 1972 it was held that time for completion of assessment was extended up to 7th February, 1973 under section 153(1)(c). He, therefore, pointed out that similarly in the present case, the limitation was extended up to 26th March, 1990 as the revised return filed on 27-3-1989 and, accordingly, the assessment finalised on 27-3-1990 is barred by limitation under section 153(1)(c) also.
24. In the light of the above discussion and conclusion, we now switch over to question No. (iii) : as to whether the assessment completed on 27-3-1990 is barred by limitation and if yes under what provision of the law ? It is seen that limitations for completion of assessment are laid down in section 153(1)(a)(iii), (b) and (c) which we have reproduced above. The normal time-limit for completion of assessment is laid down in sub-section (1)(a)(iii) of section 153, i.e., two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. In the instant case, as the assessment year is 1986-87, the normal limitation of two years from the end of the assessment year expires on 31-3-1989. As the assessment for this assessment year was completed on 27-3-1990, it is barred by limitation under section 153(1)(a)(iii).