TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessment year 2008-09. Gudivada Shyam Kumar Naidu, Visakhapatnam 2. This is a case of representative assessee. Sri Gudivada Shyam Kumar Naidu, non-resident has sold the immovable property to Smt. Bheemarasetty Sunitha comprising of 226 sq.yards of vacant site situated at Allipuram, Ward ( D.No.30-15-173), Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09 vide document No.3187/2007 which was registered before the Joint Sub Registrar, Visakhapatnam. The sale consideration and the SRO value of the property was Rs. 49,72,000/-. Shri Gudivada Siva Satish Naidu who has acted as Special Power Agent (SPA) for the transaction is treated as an agent and representative assessee Shri Gudivada....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endment is not applicable for enlargement of the time limit already expired for issue of notice u/s 148. Following the order of the ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Madhucon Sino Hydro JV Vs. DCIT in I.T.A. No.246/Hyd/2015 dated 15.07.2015 allowed the appeal of the assessee. For ready reference, we extract relevant part of the order of this Tribunal in Smt. V.Pratima Rao and five others in ITA NO.69 to 74/viz2018 dated 6th June 2018 para No.7 to 7.2 which reads as under : "7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the Rep.Assessee has purchased the property from Gudivada Shyam Kumar Naidu, Visakhapatnam LalithaD.V.Rao and 7 others and Out of the 8 vendors, the following are non re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lace. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this case, which is not even pointed out by the Appellant, is barred by limitation prescribed under provisions of sub-section (3) of Sec. 149 of the Act. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 149 of the Act as they stood at the relevant point of time read as follows:- "(3) if the person on whom a notice under section 148 is to be served is a person treated as the agent of a non-resident under section 163 and the assessment, reassessment or re-computation to be made in pursuance of the notice is to be made on him as the agent of such non-resident, the notice shall not be issued after the expiry of a period of *[six] years from the end of the relevant assessment year. [Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 limitation and therefore void ab initio. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S.Gadgil Vs. Lal&Company (supra)held that limitation having expired under the old provision before coming into force of the amending law and the amending law having not been made retrospective, notice under section 34 was barred by limitation.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thorise the ITO to commence proceedings which before the new Act came into force had by the expiry of the period provided become barred. 7.2. Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of Addl.CIT Vs. Watan Mechanical and Turning Works (supra) held as under : It is well-settled that the IT Act as it stands amended on the 1st day of April of any financial year, must apply to the assessment of that year. Any amendments in the Act which come into force after the first day of April of financial year, would not apply to the assessment of that year, even if the assessment is actually made after the amendments come into force.' In the instant case, the assessment year involved is 2007-08 and the time limit for issue of notice....