TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under : "For that the assessment under section 158BC is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of section 158BE. The block assessment order has been passed on July 18, 2005 which is beyond two years of the last of the authorisation even after excluding the period commencing from the day on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited under section 142(2A) and ending on the day on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit. Thus the block assessment under section 158BC is liable to be set aside and demand notice is liable to be quashed." 3. The brief facts in respect of the aforesaid ground of appeal turn around on the dates of events which are relevant to decide this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned counsel, the audit report ought to have been submitted of the special auditor on February 20, 2005 before the Assessing Officer. According to the learned counsel, the Assessing Officer did not pass any order on 21 to 24th of February, 2005. However, on February 25, 2002 he extended suo motu the period for submission of special audit for another 90 days i.e. up to April 21, 2005. According to the learned counsel, even if the special audit report was filed on April 20, 2005 then also the Assessing Officer should have passed the assessment order within 60 days from the date i.e., on June 20, 2005. It was pointed out by the counsel that the Assessing Officer did not had the power at that point of time as per law existing, to suo motu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... us to interfere with the order passed by the authorities below. 5. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the search against the assessee under section 132 of the Act took place on November 28, 2002 and the last panchnama was drawn on December 3, 2002. As per section 158BE of the Act, the normal limitation time for completion of assessment expires on December 31, 2004. The Assessing Officer made a reference under section 142(2A) of the Act directing the special audit and directed the special auditor to complete the audit within 90 days from the said date vide order dated November 22, 2004. According to the learned counsel, the said 90 days comes to an end on February 20, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue tried her best to suggest that because of the non-co-operative attitude of the assessee the special auditor could not complete the special audit, therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other alternative but to extend the period for another 90 days and that the Assessing Officer has power to extend the time limit suo motu and for the said proposition she relied on the order of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in the case of Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 468 (P&H) and therefore, according to her, the assessment order is valid in the eyes of law. 7. We note that the settled position of law on the limitation question that has been poised before u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 1, 2008 would show the legislative intention in the proviso as existed before the amendment which is that the Assessing Officer prior to the amendment had no power to extend the period of furnishing audit report of his own. It was to rationalise the said proviso that the word 'suo motu' came to be added by way of amendment with effect from April 1, 2008. As per clause 27.3 of the Circular dated March 27, 2009 while the Assessing Officer shall continue to have the power to grant extension on an application made in this behalf by the assessee, he could also grant extension of his own when there are good and sufficient reasons for such extension. Thus, it is noticed that sub-section (2C) before the amendment did not empower ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not persuaded to agree with the interpretation as given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jagatjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). Further in view of our above discussion, it comes to be concluded that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessment order was barred by limitation. That being so, we answer question No.11 in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion that the amendment whereby the words 'suo motu' were inserted in sub-section (2C) of section 142 of the Act was to be applicable with effect from April 1, 2008 only, the amendment cannot be said to be clarificatory or retrospective in nature. The amendment was prospective and ....