Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction on assessment orders, overturns High Court decision

The Supreme Court held that the assessment order dated 01.09.1984 was not time-barred, excluding the period when the draft assessment was with the IAC from the limitation period. It clarified that conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the IAC did not eliminate the need for compliance with Section 144B unless the IAC actually exercised the powers of an ITO. The High Court of Gujarat's decision was overturned, allowing the Revenue's appeal, while the assessee's appeal against the Allahabad High Court's decision was dismissed. The Revenue was awarded costs in both appeals.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assessment order dated 01.09.1984 was time-barred under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 125A regarding concurrent jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC).
3. Applicability of Section 144B when the IAC has concurrent jurisdiction with the ITO.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Time-Barred Assessment Order
The primary issue was whether the assessment order dated 01.09.1984 for the Assessment Year 1981-82 was time-barred under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. According to Section 153, the time limit for completing the assessment is two years from the end of the Assessment Year. For the Assessment Year 1981-82, this period ended on 31.03.1984. However, the assessment order was passed on 01.09.1984. The Revenue argued that the period from 13.03.1984 to 31.08.1984, when the draft assessment order was with the IAC, should be excluded from the limitation period. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the assessment order was time-barred. Conversely, the Allahabad High Court, in a similar case, upheld the Revenue's position, excluding the period during which the draft assessment was with the IAC.

Issue 2: Concurrent Jurisdiction under Section 125A
Section 125A allows the Commissioner to confer concurrent jurisdiction on the IAC along with the ITO. The respondent/assessee argued that once the IAC was conferred with the same powers as the ITO by the CIT's order dated 29.08.1983, there was no need to forward the draft assessment order to the IAC. The High Court of Gujarat agreed with this interpretation, stating that the IAC and ITO had concurrent jurisdiction, making the forwarding of the draft assessment order unnecessary.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 144B
Section 144B requires the ITO to forward a draft assessment order to the IAC if it involves a variation exceeding the amount fixed by the Board. The respondent/assessee contended that with the IAC having concurrent jurisdiction, Section 144B should not apply. However, the Supreme Court held that Section 144B would not apply only if the IAC actually exercised the powers or performed the functions of an ITO. In this case, the IAC did not exercise such powers, and therefore, the provisions of Section 144B remained applicable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the assessment order dated 01.09.1984 was not time-barred. It held that the period during which the draft assessment was with the IAC should be excluded from the limitation period. The Court clarified that merely conferring concurrent jurisdiction on the IAC does not negate the requirement of Section 144B unless the IAC actually exercises the powers of an ITO. The judgment of the High Court of Gujarat was set aside, and the appeal of the Revenue was allowed. The appeal by the assessee against the Allahabad High Court's judgment was dismissed, affirming the view that the assessment order was within the prescribed period of limitation. The Revenue was entitled to costs in both appeals.

---