Limitation for section 143(2) notice and exclusion of stay periods remained central in the remanded tax dispute.

Timely service of notice under section 143(2) and the computation of limitation were the central issues, with the discussion also addressing whether time covered by High Court writ proceedings and stay orders could be excluded. The first appellate authority had quashed the assessments for want of a notice within the prescribed period and held that section 292BB did not cure the defect. The Revenue then argued that the High Court's interim and final orders linked to the special-audit proceedings affected the limitation period, with reliance on the exclusionary principle in Explanation (iii) to section 153. Because the scope and effect of those orders had not been fully examined, the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment was invalid for want of timely service of notice under section 143(2), and whether the period covered by the writ proceedings and stay orders of the High Court required exclusion while computing the time available for issuing that notice.

Analysis: The controversy turned on the date from which the limitation for issuing notice under section 143(2) had to be computed and on the effect of the High Court proceedings arising from the special-audit direction under section 142(2A). The CIT(A) had quashed the assessments on the footing that no notice under section 143(2) was issued within the prescribed time and that section 292BB did not cure the defect. Before the Tribunal, the Revenue raised, for the first time, the further contention that the interim and final orders of the High Court affected the computation of time and that the period covered by the stay had to be excluded, with reference also to the exclusionary principle under Explanation (iii) to section 153. As these factual and legal aspects had not been examined by the first appellate authority, particularly the scope and effect of the High Court orders, the Tribunal found it necessary to have the issue reconsidered on a fuller factual foundation.

Conclusion: The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on the issue of limitation and on the merits of the additions.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were not decided on the merits of the assessment additions, but the Revenue succeeded in obtaining a remand and revival of the proceedings before the first appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a decisive question depends on the legal effect of High Court stay orders and the relevant computation of limitation was not examined by the first appellate authority, the appellate forum may set aside the order and remand the matter for fresh consideration on all issues.

---