AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment Order passed by the Assessing Authority against the Assessee on 13.11.2000 was within limitation and was not hit by the bar of limitation. In the present case, the Block Assessment in question was made against the Assessee for the period 01.04.1988 to 01.07.1998 in terms of provisions of Section 158BC(c) read with Section 153 of the Act. The observations of the learned Tribunal in the impugned order are quoted below for ready reference: "3.On hearing both sides in detail, we find that the only issue involved in the appeal is the calculation of the limitation period in a case where reference for special audit was made by the Assessing Authority under section 142(2A). The issue is - what is the period to be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation. 4.Section 153 speaks about the time limit for completion of assessment and reassessment. As per Explanation 1(iii) below section 153(3), the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited under 142(2A) and ending with date on which he is required to furnish the report, is to be excluded. 5.In the present case, the Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period commencing from 20.04.2000 till 31.07.2000 viz., 102 days only will be excluded and added to the period of limitation for passing the Block Assessment which otherwise required to be passed on 31.07.2000, but was actually passed on 13.11.2000 viz., beyond 102 days of the excluded period of limitation and therefore, the Block Assessment was hit by limitation as prescribed in Section 158BE read with Section 153 of the Act and the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the same to be in limitation. 5.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue has urged that the terms of Section 142(2A) of the Act read with Section 158BE of the Act, Explanation 1 thereto, the period of limitation to be excluded is a period commencing from the day on which the Assessing Officer directs the Assessee to get his accounts audited under subsection (2A) of Section 142 and ending on the day on which the Assessee is required to furnish a Report of such audit under that subsection. He drew the attention of this Court that Section 158BE of the Act and Section 142(2A) of the Act which are quoted below for ready reference. Section 158BE "Time limit for completion of block asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee, and] the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the [[Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner], direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, nominated by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the [Assessing] Officer may require : [Provided that the Assessing Officer shall not direct the assessee to get the accounts so audited unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.] (2B) The provisions of sub-section (2A) shall have effect notwithstanding that the accounts of the assessee have been audited under any other law for the time being in force or otherwise. (2C) Every report under sub-section (2A) shall be furnished by the assessee to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mployed in Section 142(2A) proviso where the extension of period by 180 days will become effective from the date when the order of extension is received by the Assessee. The proviso to Section 142(2A) quoted above, clearly uses the words "received by the Assessee" and not "directs the Assessee". This distinction of two different phrases at two different places cannot be intermixed or confused with each other. 8.We draw support for the reasons, which we have given above, from the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. V. Additional CIT, [2018] 402 ITR 517 (Delhi), when dealing with the similar controversy, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court clearly held that Clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 153 of the Act refers to the period commencing from the date when the Assessing Officer directs the Assessee to get his accounts audited under Section 142(2A) ending with the date on which the Assessee is required to furnish the report of the audit. Paragraphs 27 and 28 of the Judgment of Delhi High Court are quoted below for ready reference: "For the reasons elucidated, we do not find any merit in the said contention raised and the inter....