TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee has raised the following common grounds in all the appeals : 1. The Ld. AO is not correct and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in holding that the notice under section 148 dated 24.03.2014 isnot barred by limitation. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in holding that the order under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) dated 31.03.2015 served on 06.04.2015 is not barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. AO is not correct in passing an order under section 147 without first disposing the objections raised to the reopening. Hence the entire assessment is null and void. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in holding that no objection was raised to the reopening. 4. The Ld. AO is not correct in rejecting the reverse indexation adopted by the assessee for arriving at the fair market value of the asset transferred as on 01.04.1981 and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) is not correct in confirming the same. 5. The Ld. AO is not correct in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C and the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is not correct in confirming the levy/charge of interest. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital gains, notices u/s. 148 were issued on 24.03.2014 to Dr. P. Venugopal, Rep. Assessee of Smt V Pratima Rao and Five others and served the same on him on 25.03.2014. As the Rep.Assessee had not complied with filing of return of income, reminders were issued on various dates and at last the Rep.assessee has filed the return on 11.07.2014 along with written submissions. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) dt. 28.07.2014 and also notice u/s. 142(1) dt. 30.07.2014 were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the said notices the Ld.A.R. of the assessee has requested the AO to consider the written submissions furnished on 11.07.2014 before the AO to complete the assessment and the AO completed the assessment taxing the above sums in the hands of the non-residents making the assessee an agent of the non-residents. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and challenged the validity of issue of notice u/s 148. The Ld.AR argued before the Ld.CIT(A) that the notice issued u/s 148 was barred by limitation. According to the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08, the time limit for issue of notice was 2 years from the end of the assessmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tsoever, for any confusion or doubt." The Ld.CIT(A) has taken support of Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in the case of IPCA Laboratory Ltd. Vs. DCIT (SC) 266 ITR 521 and Gem Granites Vs. CIT (SC) 271 ITR 322 and accordingly upheld the issue of notice u/s 148. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR argued that in this case, the property was purchased by the Rep.Assessee by document bearing No.2174/2006 dated 04.05.2006 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. The AO passed the order u/s 163(1)(c) on 10.02.2014 treating the assessee as an agent of the non residents for the assessment year 2007-08 and the notice u/s 148 was issued on 24.03.2014. By the time the notice was issued u/s 148, the time limit for issue of notice has been expired as provided u/s 149(3) of I.T.Act, thus the issue was dead on 31.03.2010. The amendment was not made before the date of expiry of the time limit for issue of notice and hence, the amendment cannot be applied in the assessee's case. Therefore, argued that the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law, barred by limitation, thus required to be quashed. The Ld.AR also relied on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevant assessment year in which the transaction took place. However, the Act has been amended w.e.f. 1.7.2012 by substituting the period with six years in place of two years. In explanation to sub section (3) of 149, it was clarified that the amendment made by Finance Act 2012 shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before 1st day of Apr 2012. For ready reference, we extract relevant part of the explanation to Instruction 149(3) which reads as under : Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012. According to the Ld.DR and the AO, as per explanation to Section 149(3) , the time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 is six years instead of two years. Whereas the assessee contends that the time limit was two years. 7.1. We have carefully considered the arguments made by both the parties. In the instant case, the assessment year involved was 2007-08 and the time limit for issue of notice u/s 148 in the case of agent of nonresident was two years from the end of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment year up to 30.06.2012 or within a period of six tears subsequent to 3006.2012. In this case, the relevant assessment year is 2006-07. Reassessment notice was required to be issued on or before 31.3.2008. Whereas, in the case on hand the reassessment notice was issued on 30.03.2013, which is clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 149 of the Act. The amended period of six years is applicable only from the assessment year 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to the above sub-section. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Claggett Bronchi Co. Ltd. v. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (para 9) had held as under:- ".....The issue of notice under section 148 of the Act to the agent after the expiry of two years from the end of the relevant assessment year is prohibition by the statute. The same ratio was followed in the following two cases (i) CIT v. S.G. Sambandam& Co., (2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (Mad); (ii) Ingram Micro India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (Born)." 14. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the above cases, we hold that the re-assessment proceedings in this ease are also barred by limitatio....