TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1933
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whereas the fair market value of the property as per SRO was Rs. 58,03,000/-. The non-residents have not filed the returns of income for the assessment year 2008-09 disclosing the share of their capital gains, as per Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'Act'). The consideration paid by the assessee for acquiring the property and the shares of the coowners are as under : Sl. No. Name of the Seller Consideration paid by Sri Tatineni Meher Prasad (Resident) Consideration paid by Sri Tatineni Meher Sitaram (Resident) Total Consideration received by each seller Proportionate Fair Market Value (FMV) as per the provisions of sec.50 C 1 Sri Devatha Sri Rama Murthy (Nonresident) Rs. 7,66,667 Rs. 7,66,667 Rs. 15,33,334 Rs. 19,34,334 2. Sri Devatha Nagesh Mohan (Non-Resident) Rs. 7,66,667 Rs. 7,66,667 Rs. 15,13,334 Rs. 19,34,334 3. Sri Devatha Sai Prasad, Rajahmundry Rs. 3,83,333 Rs. 3,83,333 Rs. 7,66,666 Rs. 9,67,166 4. Sri Devatha Sudhakar, Rajahmundry Rs. 3,83,333 Rs. 3,83,333 Rs. 7,66,666 Rs. 9,67,166 Total Rs. 23,00,000 Rs. 23,00,000 Rs. 46,00,000 Rs. 58,03,000 2.1. Since the non-residents have received the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the first day of April 2012, and in subsequent paragraph they observed that the amended period of six years is applicable only from the A.Y. 2012-13 onwards as per the Explanation to section 149(3). Ld.DR further submitted that the relevant part of the decision of the apex court in the case of S S Gadgil, was reproduced in page 14 of the ITAT's order in the case of V.Pratima Rao, wherein the Hon'ble apex court was of the view that the amended provisions were not given retrospective effect and hence would not give life to the dead proceedings. But, whereas in the present case, by virtue of Explanation to Section 149(3), retrospective effect was given by making the extended time limit applicable to A.Y.2012-13 and earlier years. Hence, argued to uphold the assessment. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the payments were made to the non-residents during the financial year 2006-07 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08 which is evident from the assessment order. The assessment involved in this year is 2008-09 and as per section 149(3) of the Act for the relevant assessment year 2008-09, the time limit for issue of notice u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 hereby clarified that the provisions of sub-section (1) and (3), as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the J day of April, 2022.]" *Substituted for 'two" by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f 1-7-2012. Thus, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 149 mandates that where the income escaping the assessment belongs to a non-resident, and the reassessment is to be made on agent of n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding provision will not assist him to commence a proceeding even though at the date when he issued the notice it is within the period provided by that amending Act, This will be so, notwithstanding the fact that there has been no determinable point of time between the expiry of the time provided under the old Act and the commencement of the amending Act. The legislature has given to s. 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a limited retrospective operation, .e,, up to 1st April, 1956, only. That provision must be read subject to the rule that in the absence of an express provision or clear implication, the legislature does not intend to attribute to the amending provision greater retrospectivity than is expressly mentioned, nor to authorise 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....