Devendra Kumar Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-62(1) & Ors
[Citation -2019-LL-1014-109]

Citation 2019-LL-1014-109
Appellant Name Devendra Kumar Singh
Respondent Name Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-62(1) & Ors.
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 14/10/2019
Assessment Year 2011-12
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags completion of reassessment • abatement of proceedings • reassessment proceedings • limitation prescribed • escaped assessment • agreement to sell • abuse of process • statutory period • time limit
Bot Summary: On the same day, another notice was issued under Section 143 read with Section 129 of the Act whereby the Assessing Officer observed that the order passed by this Court on 12.12.2018 has not specifically directed the abatement of the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. v. Hotel Blue Moon: 321 ITR 362 which held that the notice under Section 143(2) of the said Act was a mandatory requirement in case the Assessing Officer disagreed with the return filed by the assessee pursuant to the notice under Section 158BC. The Supreme Court also held that it was not merely a procedural requirement, but it was mandatory that the notice under Section 143(2) ought to be issued within the period of limitation. v. Union of India and Ors.: 229 ITR 399 that the notice under Section 143(2) was an integral part of the assessment itself and once there is exclusion of time for making an assessment order and completing the assessment, the exclusion of time would also be applicable to the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). While construing the expression assessment proceeding as appearing in the said Explanation 1, the Supreme Court examined various provisions dealing with the procedure for assessment as contained in Chapter-XIV and held:- ...The process of assessment thus commences with the filing of the return or when the return is not filed by the issuance by the Assessing Officer of the notice to file the return under Section 142(1) and it culminates with the issuance of the notice of demand under Section 156. Having regard to the fact that the object underlying the explanation is to extend the period prescribed for making the order of assessment, the expression assessment proceeding in the explanation must be construed to comprehend the entire process of assessment starting from the stage of filing of the return W.P. 13439/2018 Page 11 of 15 under Section 139 or issuance of notice under Section 142(1) till the making of the order of assessment under Section 143(3) or Section 144. Since the making of the order of assessment under Section 143(3) or Section 144 of the Act is an integral part of the assessment proceeding, it is not possible to split the assessment proceeding and confine it up to the stage of inquiry under Sections 142 and 143 and exclude the making of the order of assessment from its ambit. Secondly, because of the fact that no separate periods of limitation were prescribed for service of a notice under Section 143(2) and making of an assessment order under Section 143(2), the Supreme Court in the case of Auto Metal Engineers was merely concerned with the limitation for the making of an assessment order and the question of limitation for serving a notice under Section 143(2) of the said Act was not, at all, in the contemplation of the Supreme Court.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 14.10.2019 W.P.(C) 13439/2018 DEVENDRA KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shashi M Kapila, Mr. Pravesh Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Kapila, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE 62(1) & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.Shailindera Singh, Junior Standing Counsel. Mr. Siddharth Manocha, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral): CM APPL. 45126/2019 1. prayer made in present application is for clarification of order dated 12.12.2018. However in substance Petitioner seeks relief of stay of all reassessment proceedings pursuant to issuance of notice under Section 148 and also notice dated 27.09.2019 issued under Section 143 (2) of Income Tax Act till disposal of writ petition. W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 1 of 15 2. In order to appreciate contentions raised in present application, it would be apposite to first note order dated 12.12.2018, of which clarification has been sought. said interim order was passed by this Court on first date of hearing while issuing notice on writ petition and interim application [C.M. No. 52321/2019] whereby stay of assessment proceedings was sought. 3. said order is extracted below: CM Appl. 52322/2018 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 13439/2018 & CM Appl. 52321/2018 1. Issue notice. 2. petitioner/applicant contends that re-assessment notice dated 30.03.2018 impugned in these proceedings is arbitrary. It contends that "reasons to believe" has wholly ignored circumstances that reasons cited for re-assessment i.e. alleged unexplained entries in petitioner's books were in fact replied in detail by during scrutiny assessment for A.Y. 2011-2012. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has shown that in response to questionnaires and other queries in course of regular scrutiny assessment amounts advanced by M/s Krac Securities Ltd. and M/s South Asian Impex (P) Ltd. were in fact considered and dealt with. It has also been stated that with respect to amounts advanced by M/s SSJ Foods Limited, in fact petitioner had entered into agreement to sell property, and had received sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. Learned counsel stated that during course of assessment AO had elicited necessary documents which were furnished and copy of extract of ledger account - which is produced on record. petitioner has also relied upon receipt executed by SSJ Foods Limited, whereby petitioner paid back advance [during course of later financial year]. copy of W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 2 of 15 ledger extract produced in court is hereby taken on record. writ petitioner shall ensure that affidavit in support is filed within three days. Having regard to submissions made and materials on record, Court is of opinion prime facie that reassessment notice is untenable. 4. Accordingly respondents are restrained from passing final orders in proceedings consequent to reassessment notice, during pendency of this petition. 5. List on 12.03.2019. 6. Dasti. (Emphasis supplied) 4. Despite having interim order in his favour in respect of passing of final assessment order, Petitioner is not satisfied and his grievance is that Assessing Officer has misinterpreted aforesaid order to impute that court had only granted stay from passing final assessment order and not stay of entire reassessment proceedings. Learned counsel for Petitioner contends that based on this interpretation, Assessing Officer has recommenced assessment proceedings by issuing notice dated 27.09.2019 under Section 143 (2) of Act. 5. said notice is also impugned in present application and same reads as under: Sir, This is for your kind information that return of income for A. Y. 2011-12 has escaped assessment with meaning of section 147 of I.T. Act, 1961. 2. In this connection, you have filed writ petition vide Civil Misc. Petition No. 52321/2018 and W.P. (C) No. 13439/2018 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its interim order dated 12.12.2018 has restrained undersigned from passing final orders in proceedings consequent to reassessment notice, during pendency of this petition. W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 3 of 15 3. In view of above, it is observed that Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order has restrained from passing final orders only. from above it is concluded that reassessment proceedings may be followed as per provision of section 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 as Hon'ble High Court Delhi has not specifically directed abatement of proceedings u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961. provision of section 148 of IT. Act, 1961 states that: (1) Before making assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, Assessing Officer shall serve on assessee notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in notice, return of his income or income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during previous year corresponding to relevant assessment year, in prescribed form and verified in prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed; and provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were return required to be furnished under section 139: Provided that in case (a) where return has been furnished during period commencing on 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on 30th day of September, 2005 in response to notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently notice has been served under sub-section (2) of section 143 after expiry of twelve months specified in proviso to sub-section (2) of section 143, as it stood immediately before amendment of said sub-section by Finance Act, 2002 (20 of 2002) but before expiry of time limit for making assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub- section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be valid notice: Provided further that in case (a) where return has been furnished during period commencing on 1st day of October, 1991 and ending on 30th W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 4 of 15 day of September, 2005, in response to notice served under this section, and (b) subsequently notice has been served under clause (ii) of sub- section (2) of section 143 after expiry of twelve months specified in proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 143, but before expiry of time limit for making assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in sub-section (2) of section 153, every such notice referred to in this clause shall be deemed to be valid notice. Explanation. For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in first proviso or second proviso shall apply to any return which has been furnished on or after 1st day of October, 2005 in response to notice served under this section. (2) Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so. In view of above, notice u/s 143 (2) of I.T. Act, 1961 may be issued under reassessment proceedings. 6. Ms. Shashi M Kapila, Learned Counsel for Petitioner argued that stay granted by this Court encompasses stay of all reassessment proceedings till disposal of writ petition. Learned counsel for Petitioner contends that Respondent had already conducted reassessment proceedings and was in process of passing order by time matter was listed for hearing on 12.12.2018 and this Court stayed proceedings. She argued that statute grants limited time for finalizing reassessment proceedings and by virtue of interpretation given by Respondents, revenue is granting itself endless time for reassessment proceedings, which is unwarranted in law. This is against statute and contrary to stay order granted by this Court. In event, writ petition is allowed, all such reassessment proceedings would then become infructuous, however, in event, writ petition is dismissed; Respondents would get time to finalise assessment as per timeline W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 5 of 15 fixed by statue. By recommencing reassessment proceedings, Respondents are enlarging scope and time available for reassessment proceedings which is abuse of process of law. 7. Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, learned senior standing counsel for Revenue countered argument advanced by Petitioner s counsel and submitted that Petitioner has misconstrued order. She argued that order granted by this Court is unambiguous and does not call for any clarification. It explicitly directs that Respondents are restrained only from passing final orders in proceedings, consequent to reassessment notice, during pendency of petition. order nowhere interdicts Respondents from continuing with reassessment proceedings. She further argued that even otherwise, issuance of notice dated 27.09.2018 under Section 143 (2) of Act would not cause any prejudice to Petitioner. In terms of proviso to Sub Section (2) of Section 143, notice could only be issued up to 30.09.2019 and therefore issuance of notice impugned in present application, is within timelines permitted under statutory scheme. Respondents are bound by orders passed by this Court and continuation of reassessment proceedings would obviously be subjected to outcome of present writ petition. Since court has directed that final order pursuant to reassessment proceedings would not be passed, no prejudice would be caused to Petitioner in case reassessment proceedings were to continue. 8. We have given anxious consideration to submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties. We find merit in contentions of Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue that order dated 12.12.2018 unmistakeably only restrains Respondents from passing final orders, and order dated 12.12.2018 cannot be construed to mean that reassessment proceedings have been ordered to be stayed. Having not got stay of proceedings, Petitioner cannot have another bite at cherry by filing W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 6 of 15 application for seeking clarification. It is also pertinent to note that said interim order was made absolute and ordered to continue during pendency of present writ petition vide order dated 26.07.2019 whereby C.M. No. 52321/2018 was finally disposed of. 9. It is also remarkable that when Petitioner first approached this Court, Respondents had already issued notice under Section 143 (2) of Act dated 07.12.2018. Petitioner had urged that reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2011-12 are likely to be completed on or before 31.12.2018 and raised grievance against high pitched demands raised by Respondents. Finding prima facie merit in contentions of Petitioner, Court ordered that no final order in proceedings would be passed. In meantime, Respondents have issued another notice under Section 143 (2) of Act dated 27.09.2019 whereby Assessing Officer has called upon representative of Petitioner to produce documents and accounts and other evidence in support of return filed by Petitioner. On same day, another notice was issued under Section 143 (2) read with Section 129 of Act whereby Assessing Officer observed that order passed by this Court on 12.12.2018 has not specifically directed abatement of proceedings under Section 148 of Act. Thus Respondents have not taken any step that amounts to misinterpretation of order of court. 10. Now, coming to contention of Petitioner that continuation of proceedings is contrary to statute. We find contention to be untenable and unfounded. On this issue, we have considered judgment of this Court in Rajan Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 194 Taxman 287 (Delhi), relied upon by learned senior standing counsel for Revenue. In said judgment, this Court considered statutory scheme and clarified position with respect to limitation prescribed for issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of Act. It was observed that time limit for completion of W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 7 of 15 assessment as prescribed under Section 153 of Act is separate from limitation prescribed under Section 143 (2) of Act. relevant portion of said judgment reads as under: 2. To appreciate pleas taken by parties, it would be necessary to set down factual position. search was conducted on 18.01.2001 and it was said to have been completed in March 2001. notice under Section 158BC of said Act was served on assessee on 03.12.2001 and assessee filed return on 31.12.2002. According to learned counsel for assessee / appellant, notice under Section 143(2) of said Act read with provisions of Section 158BC(b) could have been issued by 31.12.2003, i.e., within period of twelve months from end of month in which return was filed. return having been filed on 31.12.2002, according to learned counsel for appellant, notice under Section 143(2) ought to have been issued by 31.12.2003. learned counsel further submitted that notice under Section 143(2) was, in fact, issued much later, i.e., on 05.07.2004. block assessment order under Section 158BC (c) was also passed later, on 30.07.2004, when, in fact, according to provisions of Section 158BE, order should have been passed by 31.01.2003. 3. learned counsel for appellant / assessee referred to decision of this court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Pawan Gupta: 318 ITR 322 and submitted that issuance of notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory even in respect of proceedings under Section 158BC. He also referred to recent decision of Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Anr. v. Hotel Blue Moon: 321 ITR 362 (SC) which held that notice under Section 143(2) of said Act was mandatory requirement in case Assessing Officer disagreed with return filed by assessee pursuant to notice under Section 158BC. Supreme Court also held that it was not merely procedural requirement, but it was mandatory that notice under Section 143(2) ought to be issued within period of limitation. In case it is not so done, then assessment following such notice would be bad in law. learned counsel for appellant / assessee, therefore, contended that since notice under Section 143(2) had been issued beyond time prescribed under said Act, block assessment order dated 30.07.2004 was bad in law. He also submitted that, in any event, block assessment order was W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 8 of 15 beyond time in itself inasmuch as last date for framing assessment under Section 158BC(c) was 31.03.2003 in view of provisions of Section 158BE. 4. Ms Bansal, appearing on behalf of revenue, contended that important circumstance has been left out by learned counsel for appellant / assessee and that is filing of application by assessee before Settlement Commission under Section 245C of said Act. Such application had been filed by appellant / assessee on 10.01.2003 and same had been rejected by Settlement Commission by passing order under Section 245 D(1) of said Act on 25.05.2004 which was received by Commissioner of Income-tax on 03.06.2004. Consequently, she placed reliance on clause (iv) of Explanation 1 to Section 158BE to submit that period between 10.01.2003 and 03.06.2004 has to be excluded in computing period of limitation for completion of assessment proceedings. She submitted that if this exclusion is granted, then revenue would, in minimum, have at least 60 days time to complete same after order under Section 245D(1) is received by Commissioner. assessment proceedings were completed on 30.07.2004 and, therefore, in view of said provisions with regard to exclusion of time, block assessment had been completed within time. She also submitted with reference to decision of Supreme Court in case of Auto & Metal Engineers and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.: 229 ITR 399 (SC) that notice under Section 143(2) was integral part of assessment itself and once there is exclusion of time for making assessment order and completing assessment, exclusion of time would also be applicable to issuance of notice under Section 143(2). 22. From above discussion, it is clear that notice under Section 143(2), where Assessing Officer does not agree with block return filed by assessee in block proceedings, is mandatory requirement of law and it must be served upon assessee within period stipulated in proviso to Section 143(2) of said Act. If that is not done, block assessment order passed pursuant thereto would be invalid and would not be mere irregularity. It is also clear that filing of settlement application under Section 245C of said Act does not, by itself, amount to any stay of assessment proceedings before Assessing Officer. There is no bar on Assessing Officer from proceeding further with assessment W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 9 of 15 by issuing mandatory notice under Section 143(2) within time stipulated or even framing assessment order. 23. We are now left to examine decision of Supreme Court in case of Auto & Metal Engineers (supra) which was strongly relied upon by Ms Bansal, who appeared on behalf of revenue. As noted in said decision itself, short question which fell for consideration by Supreme Court related to interpretation of expression assessment proceeding in Explanation 1 to Section 153 of said Act. It would be relevant to note that appeals before Supreme Court related to assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. In appeals before Supreme Court, Delhi High Court had, in writ petitions filed earlier, passed interim order directing that revenue may proceed in pursuance of notice, but no final order be passed till pendency of writ petitions. That interim order was passed on 23.11.1971 and was continued till 12.08.1974, when writ petitions were dismissed by this court. Thereafter, income-tax officer issued notices to assessee firm as well as its partners under Sections 142(1), 143(2) and 143(3) of said Act in respect of assessment years referred to above. replies were filed to said notices by assessees on 21.11.1974 and soon thereafter, writ petitions were filed before Punjab & Haryana High Court. plea taken by assessees / petitioners therein was that under interim order dated 23.11.1971 passed by Delhi High Court, there was no stay of assessment proceedings and, therefore, Explanation 1 to Section 153 of said Act could not be invoked and that after expiry of period prescribed under Section 153, income-tax officer was not competent to issue notice in assessment proceedings against assessees. view taken by learned single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court was that expression assessment proceeding in Explanation 1 to Section 153 would include passing of order of assessment and since passing of order of assessment had been stayed by Delhi High Court, there was stay of assessment proceedings by said High Court. writ petitions were, therefore, dismissed by learned single Judge of Punjab & Haryana High Court and Letters Patent Appeals preferred before Division Bench of that High Court were also dismissed. It is against said dismissal of appeals by Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court that matter was taken further before Supreme Court. plea taken by assessees before Supreme Court was that only passing of final order of assessment had been stayed by virtue of W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 10 of 15 Delhi High Court s order dated 23.11.1971 and that assessment proceedings as such had not been stayed and, therefore, it was open to income-tax officer to proceed with income-tax proceedings during pendency of writ petitions and since he failed to do so, he could not take any steps in assessment proceedings by issuing notices under Sections 142 and 143 of said Act after 31.03.1972, when assessment became time barred. This plea was rejected by Supreme Court. Explanation 1 to Section 153, as was applicable in respect of assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, was as under:- Explanation 1. In computing period of limitation for purposes of this section, time taken in reopening whole or any part of proceeding or in giving opportunity to assessee to be reheard under proviso to Section 129 or any period during which assessment proceeding is stayed by order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded. While considering above Explanation, Supreme Court observed that object of explanation seems to be that if Assessing Officer was unable to complete assessment on account of order or injunction staying assessment proceeding passed by court, period during which such order or injunction was in operation should be excluded for purposes of computing period of limitation for making assessment order. While construing expression assessment proceeding as appearing in said Explanation 1, Supreme Court examined various provisions dealing with procedure for assessment as contained in Chapter-XIV and held:- ...The process of assessment thus commences with filing of return or when return is not filed by issuance by Assessing Officer of notice to file return under Section 142(1) and it culminates with issuance of notice of demand under Section 156. making of order of assessment is, therefore, integral part of process of assessment. Having regard to fact that object underlying explanation is to extend period prescribed for making order of assessment, expression "assessment proceeding" in explanation must be construed to comprehend entire process of assessment starting from stage of filing of return W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 11 of 15 under Section 139 or issuance of notice under Section 142(1) till making of order of assessment under Section 143(3) or Section 144. Since making of order of assessment under Section 143(3) or Section 144 of Act is integral part of assessment proceeding, it is not possible to split assessment proceeding and confine it up to stage of inquiry under Sections 142 and 143 and exclude making of order of assessment from its ambit. order staying passing of final order of assessment is nothing but order staying assessment proceeding. Since passing of final order of assessment had been stayed by Delhi High Court by its order dated 23-11-1971 in writ petitions, it must be held that there was stay of assessment proceedings for purpose of Explanation I in Section 153. High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding that period during which said stay order passed by Delhi High Court was in operation has to be excluded for purpose of computing period of limitation for making order of assessment and appeals are liable to be dismissed. 25. We cannot agree with submission made by learned counsel for revenue. There are several reasons for this. First of all, decision in Auto & Metal Engineers (supra) was in respect of assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70. As has been rightly pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, at that point of time, there was no stipulation as to limitation with regard to issuance or service of notice under Section 143(2), which, as applicable for those assessment years, was as under:- 143. Assessment. (1) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (2) Where return has been made under Section 139 but Income-tax Officer is not satisfied without requiring presethe assessee or production of evidence that return is correct and complete, he shall serve on assessee notice requiring him, on date to be therein specified, either to attend at Income-tax Officer s office or to produce, or to cause to be there produced, any evidence on which assessee may rely in support of return. W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 12 of 15 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. By way of subsequent amendments, specific stipulation as to time within which notice under Section 143(2) should be served on assessee, has been introduced by virtue of proviso to Section 143(2) as it now stands and which has been extracted in earlier part of this judgment. For assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, which were before Supreme Court in Auto & Metal Engineers (supra), only period of limitation was with regard to making of assessment order and period therefor was provided in Section 153(1) of said Act. Obviously, in situation prevailing then, notice under Section 143(2) could be served on assessee at any point of time prior to terminal date for making assessment order under Section 143(3). This is not case any longer. Now, by virtue of proviso to Section 143(2), it is mandatory that no such notice can be served on assessee after expiry of stipulated time period. Such requirement has been held to be mandatory by Supreme Court, as mentioned above, and if such notice is not served within prescribed time, it would not be mere irregularity or curable defect. fact that such notice is not served within stipulated time, is fatal to assessment proceedings whether they be in regular course under Chapter XIV or block assessment proceedings under Chapter XIV-B. This much is abundantly clear from decision of this court in case of Pawan Gupta (supra) and decision of Supreme Court in case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra). 27. Secondly, because of fact that no separate periods of limitation were prescribed for service of notice under Section 143(2) and making of assessment order under Section 143(2), Supreme Court in case of Auto & Metal Engineers (supra) was merely concerned with limitation for making of assessment order and question of limitation for serving notice under Section 143(2) of said Act was not, at all, in contemplation of Supreme Court. Therefore, decision of Supreme Court in Auto & Metal Engineers (supra) would not apply to facts and circumstances obtaining in present case and, particularly when specific time limit has been introduced subsequently for service of notice under Section 143(2) of said Act. 11. Learned counsel for Petitioner has sought to distinguish said judgment, on ground that it pertains to block assessment and therefore is not W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 13 of 15 relevant to facts of present case. We are however not convinced with this submission. proviso to subsection (2) of Section 143, as it stands today provides that no notice shall be served on assessee after expiry of six months from end of financial year in which return is furnished. We are informed that return in present case was filed on 12.09.2018. Accordingly, six months envisaged under proviso to Section 143 (2) of Act would expire on 30.09.2019 and thus notice was necessarily required to be issued under said provision prior to said date. In present case, notice under Section 143 (2) had already been issued prior to filing of present petition, and if another notice has been issued, we do not see any reason to stay same. No law has been shown which restricts issuance of more than one notice. issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) is essential for Assessing Officer to embark upon scrutiny assessment, however it does not mean that once notice has been issued, another notice could not be issued thereafter. Certainly, after 30.09.2019, Respondents cannot issue fresh notice. limitation provided under Section 153 (2) of Act, pertains to issuance of order of assessment, reassessment or re- computation. Explanation 1 (ii) of Section 153 provides that period during which assessment proceedings is stayed by order or injunction of any court shall be excluded for purpose of computing period of limitation. Further, Section 153 (2) read with First proviso to Explanation 1 provides that immediately after exclusion of aforesaid period, where period of limitation available to assessing officer for making order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation is less than sixty days, then such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. In present case, reassessment proceedings had to be concluded before 31.12.2018. However, before expiry of said period, on 12.12.2018, Court had restrained Respondents from passing final order. Thus in case Petitioner was not to W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 14 of 15 succeed in present case, Respondents would then have to complete reassessment proceedings in terms of Section 153(2) read with First proviso to Explanation 1 within period of sixty days from date of final decision of writ petition, assuming same is against Petitioner. However, this does not mean that Respondents are granting themselves endless time for completion of reassessment proceedings. stay order has been granted by this Court pursuant to request made by Petitioner. If Petitioner would not have pressed for same, Respondents would have been bound to pass order within statutory period prescribed under Section 153. stay is operating against passing of final assessment order. That does not mean that continuation of reassessment proceedings, in mean time would be contrary to statute. Needless to say, if Petitioner were to succeed, such proceedings would be infructuous and same are being conducted at risk and peril of Respondents. Accordingly, we also do not see any prejudice being caused to Petitioner in any manner. 12. For foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in present application and same is dismissed. SANJEEV NARULA, J VIPIN SANGHI, J OCTOBER 14, 2019 nk W.P. (C) 13439/2018 Page 15 of 15 Devendra Kumar Singh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-62(1) & Or
Report Error