TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... release of a portion of the seized jewellery in pursuance of the orders of the Settlement Commission. 3. In short, the facts of the case are that on July 18, 2001, return under section 158BC for the block period April 1, 1989, to February 9, 2000, was filed. On August 17, 2001, the petitioner filed an application under section 245C before the Income-tax Settlement Commission, which was registered as Application No. 7/23/2001/3-IT. 4. The Settlement Commission on January 30, 2002, directed the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Central) to furnish report within 90 days, as required under rule 9 of the Income-tax Settlement Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1997. The Settlement Commission also directed that the payment be made and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 245D(4) were not passed by the Settlement Commission by March 31, 2008. 8. The consequence of the aforesaid amendment was that the assessing authority was to complete the assessment in accordance with law, which assessment was to be made by the Assessing Officer by the time prescribed. 9. So long as the matter was pending before the Settlement Commission, the Assessing Officer was not required to pass any assessment order and it was the Settlement Commission who was to take a final decision as per section 245D(4) of the Act, but in view of the fact that by virtue of the amendment in the Finance Act, 2007, on June 1, 2007, the pending proceedings before the Settlement Commission since abated, therefore, on Mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o bank guarantees furnished by the petitioner for release of a portion of the seized jewellery, but his prayer has not been accepted till date. 13. The short argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer was legally obliged to pass the assessment order by March 31, 2009, in view of the fact that the proceedings registered before the Settlement Commission stood abated on March 31, 2008, in terms of the second proviso to section 153(4) of the Act up to March 31, 2009, and the Assessing Officer having failed to do so, all the proceedings stand vitiated. 14. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssion and that in the absence of knowledge that he is to pass an assessment order, the assessment order could not be passed within the period of limitation. 16. We do not find any exception under the Act where the period of limitation for passing the assessment order can be enlarged/enhanced, either by the court or by the assessing authorities. 17. Section 153(1) prescribes limitation for passing an assessment order in matters arising out of proceedings under section 143 or section 144 of the Act. The language used is prohibitive, which restrains/prohibits the Assess- ing Officer to pass an order of assessment, after the period prescribed therein. 18. The second proviso to section 153(4) prescribed an extended period ....