TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (6) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 w.e.f. 1-10-1984 ?" 2. Before we come to the legal aspect of this issue we like to have a close look on the facts of these cases. The following statistical data culled out of the relevant records, gives in juxtaposition, the assessment years involved, the date of making the assessments, the service of notice u/s. 263, the date of hearing, the date of order u/s. 263 and the date on which limitation had struck the proceedings before the insertion of section 263(2) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984 w.e.f. 1-10-1984 (given on next page) :--- 3. It is apparent from the statistical data that the Commissioner issued notice u/s. 263 in all the cases on 26-3-85 and after hearing the parties on 26-3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi). 5. The learned counsel for the assessees further submitted that the CIT even failed to take note of the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes being Circular No. 402 (F 279/146/84 ITJ) dated 1-12-1984 and acted in violation of the directions of the CBDT clarifying the position about the substituted sub-section (2) of section 263. According to him, it was crystal clear from these instructions issued by the CBDT that no action could be and no action should be taken under sub-section (2) of section 263 as substituted w.e.f. 1-10-1984 in respect of the assessments where --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. No. N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-------------------------------------------------------- limitation had already covered the assessments. It was thus argued that the orders made by the CIT u/s 263 were ab initio void in all these cases. These may be cancelled. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that he would have clearly succeeded on merits by, inter alia, pointing out that the orders made by the CIT were in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as he made the orders after giving notice for a day but he would not go on this issue in view of the fact that only legal issue of limitation was being argued from both the Bides. 7. The learned DR, however, very vehemently supported the impugned order made by the ld. CIT. 8. We have given ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Shikha Gupta had struck proceedings on 30th April, 1984 for the asstt. year 1981-82. Similarly, in the case of Miss Savita Bansal for the asstt. years 1979-80 to 1981-82 action u/s. 263 had become barred by 30th April, 1984. In the case of Miss Sahil Bansal for the asstt. years 1979-80 to 1981-82 action u/s. 263(2) had become barred on 2-5-1984. Similarly, for the asstt. year 1982-83 in the case of Sahil Bansal and Savita Bansal the action u/s. 263 was barred on 29-9-1984. All these dates fall prior to 1-10-1984 when the substituted present sub-section (2) which provides that no order shall be made u/sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed, was bro....