" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023 (Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94) ITC LIMITED Taxation Department, 37 J L Nehru Road, Kolkata., Kolkata, West Bengal, 700071 Vs. DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square,Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACI59501 ITA Nos. 745 & 744/KOL/2024 (Assessment Years: 1992-93& 1993-94) DCIT, CIR-7(1), KOLKATA. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, ChowringheeSquare,Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 Vs. ITC LIMITED Taxation Department, 37 J L Nehru Road, Kolkata., Kolkata, West Bengal, 700071 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri J.P. Khaitan & Shri Bikash Chanda, Shri Aakash Agrawal, Ars Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Datta, DR Date of hearing: 27.01.2025 & 16.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 19.05.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: Earlier case was heard on 27.01.2025 and thereafter the case was fixed for clarification on 16.05.2025 on certain issues & both the parties have been heard on 16.05.2025. These are the cross appeals preferred against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 12.10.2023 & 05.10.2023 for the AYs1992-93 & 1993-94 respectively. Page | 2 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 02. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee pressed ground no.1 which read as under:- “1. Section 153: Reassessment Proceedings barred by law as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act Tax Impact - Not Applicable] a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting that the impugned reassessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre (\"NFAC\") was beyond the time limit prescribed under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") for passing of the said order and thus the impugned reassessment order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. b) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the instant reassessment proceedings were already time barred on 01 May 2021 and that the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and the notifications issued thereunder are not applicable to the instant reassessment proceedings. c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in stating that there is no merit in appellant's contention that reassessment proceedings are barred by law. Relief Prayed: The impugned reassessment order may kindly be held as time barred as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act and quashed.” 03. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.12.1992, which was revised on 30.03.1994, declaring total income at ₹162,97,59,233/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was accordingly completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.02.1995, assessing the income at ₹165,65,02,220/-. While framing the assessment the assessee was allowed deduction u/s 80HHD and 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at ₹11,69,99,014/- and ₹11,73,61,242/- respectively qua which the assessee had filed audited report in form no.10CCAD and 10CCAC respectively. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of cigarettes and tobacco, agro-products, paper and hotel business etc. According to the ld. AO the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80HHD of ₹3,44,67,125/- as against the Page | 3 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 deduction actually claimed of ₹11,69,99,014/- and thus excess deduction was allowed to the tune of ₹8,25,31,889/-. Similarly, the ld. AO was of the opinion that the deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act was wrongly claimed by the assessee on the basis of audited report in the form of 10CCAC amounting to ₹11,73,61,242/-. According to the ld. AO, the income of the assessee has escaped assessment to the above extent as stated hereinabove and re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 17.06.1997 after obtaining the approval of competent authority u/s 151 of the Act. The assessee complied with the said notice vide letter dated 17.07.1997, requesting the ld. AO to treat the return filed for the impugned assessment year in respect of which the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee thereafter requested the ld. AO vide letter dated 17.07.1997, to provide the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) of the Act copy of which was not supplied. Subsequently, the assessee filed a writ petition bearing number 176 of 2013, before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta on the ground that no reasonswere furnished by the ld. Assessing Officer to the assessee. The Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order dated 22.12.1997, while finally the order was passed on 21.02.2020, thereby disposing off the writ petition and assessee is granted liberty in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshaft Ltd. VS. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19, to take all the points available in accordance therewith before the department. The assessee strongly submitted before the AO that the assessment being barred by limitation in terms of Provisions of Section 153(2) of the Act read with proviso. However, the ld. AO rejected the contention of the assessee and held that the assessment was not barred by limitation and proceeded with the framing of the assessment vide order dated Page | 4 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 28.09.2021 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 263/ 144B of the Act by making two additions; (i) 8,25,31,889/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHD and (ii) ₹11,73,61,202/- on account of excess deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 04. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal on this issue after taking into account contentions raised by the assessee and thus upheld the order of AO. 05. The ld. AR vehemently submitted before us that the assessment framed by the ld. AO is hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore, the same deserved to be quashed as being passed in violation of timeline prescribed u/s 153(2) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 28.02.1995.Thereafter notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 17.01.1997 and served on the assessee on 18.06.1997, a copy of which is available at page no. 62 of the Paper Book. The ld. AR further submitted that in terms of provisions of Section 153(2) of the Act as was applicable at the relevant point of time, no assessment shall be framed u/s 147 of the Act after expiry of two years from the end of financial year in which the notice u/s 148 was issued. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has challenged the assessment proceedings by filing the writ petition before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble High Court has passed an interim order directing the revenue that no final assessment order shall be passed without the leave of the court. The ld AR submitted that during the pendency of the writ petitions, section 153 of the Act was substituted by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from June 1, 2016 by inserting a proviso in sub-section (9) of the substituted section by the Finance Act, 2017 with retrospective effect from June 1, 2016. Sub-section (9) Page | 5 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 of the substituted section 153 as amended provides that the provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016, shall apply to and in relation to any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016. As per the proviso where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2) of section 143 or section 148 has been issued prior to the 1st day of June,2016 and the assessment or reassessment has not been completed by such date due to exclusion of time referred to in Explanation 1, such assessment or reassessment shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of this section as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016.The ld AR submitted that for the assessment year 1992-93 notice under section 148 was issued prior to June 1, 2016, but in terms of the aforesaid proviso, no order could be passed because of the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court requiring the exclusion of time in terms of Explanation 1(ii), the reassessments were required to be completed in accordance with the provisions of section 153 as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016. The ld. AR submitted that the period from December 22, 1997 till the date of disposal of the writ petitions by the Hon'ble High Court viz. January 22, 2020 for the assessment year 1992-93 was required to be excluded. The ld AR submitted that from 22.1.2020 , the Assessing Officer had 465 days in hand for completing the reassessment for the assessment years 1992-93 and therefore the assessment completed on September 28, 2021 was well beyond the period of limitation. 06. The ld AR while referring to the assessment order submitted that , the Assessing Officer had accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order for the assessment Page | 6 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 year 1992-93 however, he by relying upon the provisions of the Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (\"TOLA\") and Notifications issued thereunder to held that time was available till September 30, 2021 to pass the order. The ld AR vehemently argued that the TOLA or Notifications issued thereunder had no application in the instant case as the limitation did not expire between March 20, 2020 and December 31, 2020 . The ld AR submitted that TOLA as originally enacted applied where the time limit was to expire between March 20, 2020 and December 31, 2020. Notification No. 93/2020 applied where limitation was to set in by March 30, 2021. Notification No. 10/2021 applied where limitation was to set in by March 31, 2021 due to extension by earlier notifications or otherwise. None of the aforesaid provisions or notifications applied in the instant case since the limitation date fell on May 1, 2021. Notifications Nos. 38/2021 and 74/2021 applied only where limitation was extended by the earlier notifications. Since in the instant case there was no extension by the earlier notifications, Notifications Nos. 38/2021 and 74/2021 did not apply. Unlike Notification No. 10/2021, there was no provision in Notifications Nos. 38/2021 and 74/2021 extending the time limit in other cases where there had been no time extension by the earlier notifications. In defense the ld AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High in Shell India Markets (P). Ltd. v Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, (2022) 443 ITR 366 (Bom.) 07. The ld. AR ,in rebuttal, submitted that the question whether two years' time granted by the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 153 of the Act in respect of notices served during the financial year 1999-2000 can be applied in a case where the notice under section 148 of the Act was served during any other period came up for consideration before Page | 7 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v Smt. Anchi Devi, (2008) 171 Taxman 228 (P&H). In that case, the notice under section 148 of the Act was served on January 11, 2001 i.e. after the period mentioned in the proviso and before June 1, 2001 when the amendment to section 153(2) by the Finance Act, 2001 took effect. The ld AR submitted that the said judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was followed by the Delhi Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in ITO v Atul Agarwal, (2008) 172 Taxman 170 (Del.) (Mag). In that case also, the notice under section 148 of the Act was served on March 16, 2001 after the period mentioned in the proviso and before the amendment took effect. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that the Assessee's appeal may be allowed by holding that the reassessment order was passed after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation. 08. The ld DR strongly objected to the arguments of the ld AR by submitting that limitation of two years from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was issued as contained in section 153(2) of the Act as it stood on the date of issue of the notice under section 148 of the Act would apply and not the curtailed period of one year consequent to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2001 and therefore same is without merit. The ld Dr also filed detailed submissions supporting the order of lower authorities on the issue of limitation which are considered and placed in the appellate folder. 09. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the records placed before us carefully including the interim and final orders passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. In our considered opinion it is settled position of law that the time taken during which the matter remained stayed by the Hon’ble High Court Page | 8 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 has to be excluded for calculating the limitation period for passing the assessment order. The interim order staying the passing of assessment order was passed by the Court on 22.12.1997. The Assessee's writ petition for the assessment year 1992-93 was finally disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court on January 22, 2020 by granting liberty to the Assessee to object to the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act taking all points available to it in accordance with law and the Assessing Officer was directed to decide such objections. Thus we find merit in the submission of the assessee that the period from December 22, 1997 to January 22, 2020 for the assessment year 1992-93 was required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation in terms of Explanation 1(ii) to section 153 of the Act. We note that during the pendency of the writ petition, section 153 of the Act was substituted by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from June 1, 2016 and a proviso was inserted in sub-section (9) of the substituted section by the Finance Act, 2017 with retrospective effect from June 1, 2016. For the sake of ready reference the sub-section (9) of the substituted section 153 as amended is extracted as under:- \"(9) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016, shall apply to and in relation to any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016: Provided that where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub- section (2) of section 143 or section 148 has been issued prior to the 1st day of June,2016 and the assessment or reassessment has not been completed by such date due to exclusion of time referred to in Explanation 1, such assessment or reassessment shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of this section as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016).\" 010. After perusal of the above it is clear that in terms of the aforesaid proviso, for the assessment year 1992-93 notice under section 148 was issued prior to June 1, 2016, but no order could be passed Page | 9 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 because of the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court requiring exclusion of time in terms of Explanation 1(ii), the reassessment was required to be completed in accordance with the provisions of section 153 as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016. Thus on December 22, 1997, there were 100 days till the end of financial year 1997-98 meaning thereby that , the Assessing Officer had 100 days plus one year for completing the reassessment. In other words, the Assessing Officer had 465 days in hand for completing the reassessment and the respective last date for such completion was May 1, 2021 but assessment was completed on September 28, 2021 which in our opinion is well beyond the period of limitation. 011. We also note that the AO accepted the Assessee's calculation of limitation as correct (paragraph 5.7 of the assessment order however, wrongly relied upon the provisions of the Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation & Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (\"TOLA\") and Notifications issued thereunder to hold that time was available till September 30, 2021 to pass the assessment order. The ld AO even made reference to the order dated September 23, 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021. Similarly, the appellate order passed by the ld CIT(A) upholding the assessment order is also incorrect as TOLA or Notifications issued thereunder are not application in the instant case. For the sale of ready reference the TOLA provisions are discussed as under:- (a) Section 3(1) of TOLA sought to extend limitation up to March 31, 2021 where it was to expire between March 20, 2020 and December 31, 2020 (Page 170 at 171-172 of Paper Book for assessment year 1992-93). (b) Notification No. 93/2020 dated December 31, 2020 sought to extend limitation up to March 31, 2021 where it was to expire between March 20, 2020 and March 30, 2021 (Page 210 of Paper Book for assessment year 1992-93). Page | 10 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 (c) By Notification No. 10/2021 dated February 27, 2021, Notification No. 93/2020 was modified to extend the time limit to April 30, 2021 in cases where it was to expire on March 31, 2021 due to its extension by Notification No. 93/2020. In other cases also, where time limit was to expire on March 31, 2021, it was extended to September 30, 2021 (Page 212 of Paper Book for assessment year 1992-93). (d) By Notification No. 38/2021 dated April 27, 2021, Notifications Nos. 93/2020 and 10/2021 (as also Notification No. 20/2021 dated March 31, 2021 which is not relevant in the instant case) were modified to extend the time limit up to June 30, 2021 where it was to expire on April 30, 2021 due to its extension by the said earlier notifications (Page 214 of Paper Book for assessment year 1992-93). (e) By Notification No. 74/2021 dated June 25, 2021, Notifications Nos. 93/2020, 10/2021, 20/2021 and 38/2021 were modified to extend the time limit till September30, 2021 where it was to expire on June 30, 2021 due to its extension by the said earlier Notifications (Page 216 of Paper Book for assessment year 1992-93). 012. It is clear from the above that TOLA as originally enacted applied where the time limit was to expire between March 20, 2020 and December 31, 2020. Notification No. 93/2020 applied where limitation was to set in by March 30, 2021. Notification No. 10/2021 applied where limitation was to set in by March 31, 2021 due to extension by earlier notifications or otherwise. None of the aforesaid provisions or notifications applied in the instant case since the limitation dates fell on May 1, 2021 and April 24, 2021. Notifications Nos. 38/2021 and 74/2021 applied only where limitation was extended by the earlier notifications. Since in the instant case there was no extension by the earlier notifications, Notifications Nos. 38/2021 and 74/2021 did not apply. Unlike Notification No. 10/2021, there was no provision in Notifications Nos. 38/2021 and 74/2021 extending the time limit in other cases where there had been no time extension by the earlier notifications. The Assessee's contention finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High in Shell India Markets (P). Ltd. v Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, (2022) 443 ITR 366 (Bom.) The operative paras are as under:- Page | 11 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 “16. Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Relaxation Act also provides that the Central Government, by notification, can extend the period to such other date after 31st December, 2020. Therefore, CBDT issued the first Notification No. 20/2021. Clause A of this notification provides that where the specified Act is the Income-tax Act, and the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act relates to passing of an order under section 144C(13) of the Act and 31st March 2021 is the end date, during which the time-limit specified in the Act falls for completion of such action, 30th April 2021 shall be the end date to which the time-limit for completion of such action shall stand extended. The notification, therefore, provides that if the time-limit to complete the assessment under section 144C(13) was expiring on any date upto 31st March 2021, the said date for completion was extended upto 30th April 2021. Since in this case, the time-limit for completion of assessment was not expiring as of 31st March 2021, in our view, Notification No. 20/2021 is not applicable. 17. Coming to the applicability of Notification No. 38/2021 issued on 27th April 2021, clause (A) of the notification provides that where the specified Act is the Income-tax Act, and the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order under section 144C(13) of the Act and the time-limit for completion of such action expires on 30th April 2021 \"due to its extension by earlier notifications\", such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th June 2021. The expiry of time-limit for completion of assessment or for passing the order in petitioner's case under section 144C(13) of the Act on 30th April 2021 was not due to an earlier extension of time-limit by an earlier notification but was on account of the fact that the directions were issued by the DRP on 20th March 2021. As per section 144C(13) of the Act, an assessing officer has one month from the date of the end of the month in which the directions are received by him to pass the final order/complete assessment, therefore, in our view, the time-limit of 30th April 2021 not being on account of extension by earlier notification, Notification No. 38/2021 is also inapplicable to petitioner's case. 18. Coming to Notification No. 74/2021 issued on 25th June 2021, clause (A) of the notification provides that where the specified Act is the Income-tax Act, and the completion of any action referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Relaxation Act, relates to passing of an order for assessment or re-assessment under the Act and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof expires on 30th June 2021 due to its extension by earlier notifications, such time-limit shall further stand extended to 30th September 2021. There is no extension of time-limit under this notification for completion of assessment or passing of any order under section 144C(13) of the Act. In our view, therefore, Notification No. 74/2021 is also not applicable to the case at hand. 19. Even if we hold that the Relaxation Act was applicable to petitioner's case as well, still, the extension vide Notification No. 74/2021 is applicable only to cases where the time-limit has already been extended by earlier notifications. Since the time-limit in petitioner's case has not been extended by earlier notifications, Notification No. 74/2021 was not applicable to petitioner's case.” Page | 12 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 013. Therefore, reliance by the authorities on the order dated September 23, 2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is incorrect and misplaced. The said order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking suo moto cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws and exclusion of time/extension of time was allowed in such cases. Exclusion/extension of time was also allowed where any law prescribed period of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the Court or Tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings by the Court or Tribunal. In so far as extension of time for taking action by the statutory authorities was concerned, the Legislature itself had stepped in by enacting TOLA and authorizing issue of notifications thereunder. As it turned out, no notification was issued under TOLA to apply in a case such as the present one. 014. We do not find any merit in the contention of the Revenue that limitation of two years would apply from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was issued pursuant section 153(2) of the Act as it stood on the date of issue of the notices under section 148 of the Act and not the curtailed period of one year consequent to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2001. The proviso to sub-section (9) of section 153 of the Act as it stood at the time when the writ petitions were disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court expressly stipulated completion of reassessment in accordance with the provisions of section 153 of the Act as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016 in cases where notice under section 148 of the Act had been issued prior to June 1, 2016 and the reassessment had not been completed by such date because Page | 13 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 of stay granted by the Court. Section 153(2) of the Act as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016 specified one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 of the Act was served as the time limit for passing the order of the reassessment. Time of two years up to March 31, 2002 was granted only in respect of notices served during the financial year 1999-2000. After the amendment with effect from June 1, 2001, in no other case did the statute grant two years' time from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 of the Act was served for completion of reassessment. It is well settled that the law relating to limitation is procedural and applies to pending cases. In the instant case, the amended law of limitation expressly provides how limitation in pending cases is to be determined and no other view can be taken. 015. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v Smt. Anchi Devi, (2008) 171 Taxman 228 (P&H) wherein the question whether two years' time granted by the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 153 of the Act in respect of notices served during the financial year 1999-2000 can be applied in a case where the notice under section 148 of the Act was served during any other period was considered.. In the said case, the notice under section 148 of the Act was served on January 11, 2001 i.e. after the period mentioned in the proviso and before June 1, 2001 when the amendment to section 153(2) by the Finance Act, 2001 took effect. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold thus: \"10..... Thus, only in such cases where notices have been served between 1-4- 1999 and 31-3-2000, the Assessing Officer can avail the time-limit of two years from the end of financial year in which notices were served. If the contention of the Department is accepted that even after 1-6-2001, the limit available for completing the assessment would be governed by the law prevalent before 1-6- Page | 14 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 2001, namely, two years from the end of the financial year in which the notice was served, that would completely nullify the effect of amended proviso. There is no provision made in amended section 153(2) of the Act to provide that the restricted time-limit of one year will not apply to all notices issued before1-6- 2001. The only protection given is to the notices issued between 1-4-1999 and 31-3-2000. The proviso itself in a sense recognises the position that only in very limited cases, the two-vear time-limit is available to the Assessing Officer Obviously, the Legislature in its wisdom thought that in respect of the notices served upon the assessee on or before 1-4-2000, sufficient time would be available to the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice was served.\" (Emphasis supplied) 016. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was followed by the Delhi Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in ITO v Atul Agarwal, (2008) 172 Taxman 170 (Del.) (Mag). In that case also, the notice under section 148 of the Act was served on March 16, 2001 after the period mentioned in the proviso and before the amendment took effect. 017. Therefore we do not find any merit in the revenue contentions that in terms of TOLA the time available for framing the assessment was up to September 30, 2021. 17. Considering the above facts in the light of provisions of the Act and the ratio laid in the various decisions as discussed above , we hold that the assessment framed by the AO is barred by limitation and is hereby quashed. 018. Since we have allowed the appeal of the assessee on the legal issue of being barred by limitation , the other grounds raised by the assessee are not being adjudicated at this stage and are left open to be decided if need arises for the same in future. 019. Since we have quashed the assessment order on the ground of being barred by limitation , the cross appeal by the revenue in ITA No. Page | 15 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 745/Kol/2024 A.Y. 1992-93 becomes infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. ITA No. 1318/KOL/2023 (Assessee’s Appeal) & ITA No.744/KOL/2024 (Revenue’s Appeal) A.Y. 1993-94 020. The facts qua A.Y. 1992-93 Vis a Vis A.Y. 1993-94 are as under: Particulars A.Y. 1992-93 A.Y. 1993-94 Date of notice u/s 148 17.06.1997 17.06.1997 Date of service of notice under section 148 18.06.1997 18.06.1997 Date of High Court’s interim order (100 days remained till the end of the financial year 1997-98) 22.12.1997 22.12.1997 Date of High Court’s final order of disposal 22.01.2020 15.01.2020 Days remaining for completing the reassessment (100 days plus one year) 465 465 Last date for passing reassessment order 01.05.2021 24.04.2021 Date of reassessment order 28.09.2021 28.09.2021 Since the legal issue of limitation in assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 1993- 94 are substantially similar to one as in ITA No.1343/Kol/2023 A.Y. 1992-93 wherein we have quashed the assessment as being barred by limitation. Therefore, our decision would , mutatis mutandis , apply to this year as well. Consequently the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 021. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 19.05.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Page | 16 ITC LIMITED; A.Ys. 1992-93 & 1993-94 ITA Nos.1343& 1318/KOL/2023, 744 & 745/KOL/2024 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "