Commissioner of Income Tax V. Ram Kishan Dass and Sunder Exports

ITA/238/2011

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had allowed the appeals of the assessee, Ram Kishan Dass, and dismissed the cross appeals of the Revenue. The core issue was the applicability of the limitation period for assessments under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search operation. The Tribunal had decided that the assessment orders were barred by limitation, as the special audit reports were not submitted within the prescribed time, and the Assessing Officer had improperly extended the time for submission without the assessee's application, prior to the legislative amendment that allowed such extensions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798510 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jagjit Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, CIT vs. Ganeshan Chapolia
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA; KAVITA JHA; SALIL AGGARWAL; PRAKASH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RASHMI CHOPRA; PRENT BANSAL
• Keywords: Limitation of Assessment; Retrospective amendment; Special Audit; Suo motu extension
• Section: 143(3); 142(2A); 142(2C); 1534; 1538(1)

Judgement Text

"f + o/o IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (1) ITA No.1786/2OLO Date of Decision: May 27, 20lL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... APPELLANT Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate Versus RAM KISHAN DASS ... RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates o/o COMMISSIONER OF (2) ITA No.179O|2O1O INCOME TAX ... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate Versus rhroush: Mr. Ajay Vohra \"# fi::[3#.?:ilJ Advocates ... RESPONDENT Page 1 of 3 RAM KISHAN DASS ,' - (3) ITA No.L794l2OL0 oh COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate Versus RAM KISHAN DASS ... RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates (4) ITA No.17O|2OL1 % COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .,. Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate Versus RAM KISHAN DASS lTAs N os : t7 86 I L0, t7 90 h0,t7 9 4 / L0, 17 0 / 11, 237 / tt, I35O / t! & 238 / tl Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified t Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates (5) ITA No.237l2O11 o/o COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate Versus RAM KISHAN DASS ... RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates (6) ITA No.135o/2o1o ' o/o COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate Versus SUNDER EXPORTS ... RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal and Mr. Prakash Kumar, Advocates (7) ITA No.238/20L1 % COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate , Versus t r- RAM KISHAN DASS ... RESPONDENT ' Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SrKRl HON',BLE MR. JUSTTCE M.L.MEHTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2.To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes lTAs Nos: r786/t0,1790hO,L794/t0, r70/t!,237/LL, L350/n &n8/!! page 2 of 3 4\" t t ' 3. Vr/heilier the jurigrneni. shnulcJ he yes rerrofced in the Digest? *Yl&'trffiI$,\"\"LiQ,ce[]. L. For orcle\"rs, see fT,A ,ftfo, nvvn/2&5.t),, tiilecJ as ccmtrirs.ssfnm4}t\" elf fsaeelrpae fa.rr rr fjiishan,$arl.loEt f*,anm f,{,isfnam .{ng;ro Ftrt:, t[,,t:e{, ciecirlec:i on 27ttt [,4ay, ZCLL tt) .H,tt--,--ri(^-0-t M\"f,,,MHi\"l'trA {.$i.rDeii:} i,irirat ,t\"*_, *-{^i.#5t[,ffEn\" ' (tur\"pffiffi) May 27, :ilS3\"e rd , I I lIAs i{os: L7B6/1.O, L790/10,L794/LA, 1.70/Lt,23'i /i.1,., #5Ai1J & 23Ul:t1 page 3 of :tr t,- @ lnn T['{E h[nGfi-fl cCDtJfiq,T\" oF DE[-['il[ lt T'[ [EW DIEI-ll-{lll ryA_Iu0\" n775l?0n0 Date of Decisiot : MaY 27, 201-7 l[ lc0ME TA X \"'\" /APPe[[an'r1l Through: MT. Prent l-ata Battsal, Sr. Aclvocate witlr Mr. Deeiral< Atrad, Advocates . Versus xsilShlAhl sAROOP R/- M E(ll5!'{A[U AGP.O pVT', [-]rm\" \"\"\" RESPOli ilDFltN-il\" Tlrrouglr: Mr. l(.P' M'all atrd Ms' l(avita Jlra, Advocates ( 2 ) nT[ _li ll o. n 77.6/? qf 0 [[ ICOME ]f'AX ;.. APPellllar-r{i Through: ' Mr, Pretn Lata Bansal, ST. / dvocate witlr Mr. Deebal< Anad, Advocates /ersus mlbrnnru sARoop R/q,M [([5FIAtu l GFto ltrvll. [-T'D. \"'\" IRESPO[ lDE[ r rhroush: XJrJlS;Jt,, and Ms r(avita Jlra, % (3) rT&Mo'nZJZ/2ot1LQ COMMilS$IONIER OF [[ [COME'[-/s X Arppellllarirt .Through: Mr. Prenr Lata Bansal, Sr' Advocate with Mr. Deepal< Anad, Advocates Versus R,I M ${[SF{/ AGRO PV-II\" LTD\" .\", R,IbSPQNI]D.EhJT , Througlr: Mr. l(.P. Mall and Ms. l(avita Jlra, . Aclvocates (4) nTA.L{sJ9-F-ry4mq IIVCOMH TAX \" AnaPeilliar\"lt Through: Mr. Prenr Lata Bansal, ST. Advocate rruith Mr, DeePal< Anad, Advoca[es lTAs No.1775 / lOtO,l776/2OtO, t777lllt), Lg65/2OtO, Z.OZZ/Z.OilO,2033/2010,20341201'0,2O3sl2O'Io, zo? 6 / 20 ro, 2037 / 20 tQ, 203 8 / zoto, 2Q39 I 20 !0, 20 46 / 20 ro & 20 47 /.20 t0 /1 f . r,l % c\"oMfvt[55[ON[ER 0[: % COMM[Ss[ONtrEIR, OF * r*[sF[An{ SARQ(Dp % COMM[55NON{ER OF Page 1 o[ 5 I 'l 'l Versus . ts[Shfll fiu sl ROoP ts/{M K[5[-nlr hn nbm,o PVT\" [-TD. '.\" RlEsPohnDEhilT \". Jhroush: XJ\"JI5i\"It\" and Ms' l(avita Jlra, (5) Hl/A liVo.2032 I?ALA rry. % COMMIS5IONEP. OF tifrUCONnE.tf/qX ,Arppelllamt Throuqh:Mr'PremLataBansal,Sr'.Aclvocate .; witlr Mr. DeePa.k Anad, Advocates Versus tsISI.IAN SAROOP RAM K[sF[ANil AGRO PVT, [-T'D. \"\". MNSPOhJIDENT' -l-hrnrrnlr' ' N.lr. l<.P. Mall atrcl Ms. l(avita Jlia, : | | ll vuv: l. i-' ,(6) @ % COMM[55[Oh{FR Ot': INilCOME T'AX \".' , 6npefillamrt . Througlr: ' ,Mr. Pretn :ata 'Bansal, Sr' Advocate witl-r Mr. D'eepal< hnad, Advocates Versus ts[s'uqnNr 5AtR00p Rl M K[5fi-[A[ i AGRO P rT. LTD\" \".. lRESlPOFliDEIUT rhrouslr XJ\"::ji\"iItll arrd' Ms. r(avita Jlra, ,(7)@ ['****tisslohnnm, o; u*ot** TAJ( .\" / prpettnrn'it Througlr: 1\"1r, Prent Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepal< Anaci, Advocates Versus ffi r s r-n A m sA *o er p *^ 'fl3.?fr y ^ffi f i.?11, 5'l\"n i \" \" ^tr''iilTt3 5 HJ Advocate (R) tl-r'rA [ io.2035/201,0 u/ n Hra _ _ o1. lv t i' I TAs No.1775 I 2010, I77612010, t777 /2010, !9Q5ll}tl,7O32/?.J1A,2033/2010,2034120t0,2C3512010, 2036 i 20 10, 2037 / 20 tO, 2O3 B / ?01 i, 203 I / 20 t\"O, 20 45 / ?O r0 & 20 47 /'2.0 tO' Fa13e 2 of 5 /@ co M M r s 5 I o r E F\" o lF'' on?# 5,f;^o, r' P re m t-a ta e a n \"' ;'; fY^ffi 'lf$ with Mr. Deeiral< Anad, Advocates Versus RIESIPOilUDENNT\" trr- t/^,,i1-^ ll^- lvl5. l crvlLo Jllcl ,. versul :. t m[5fi-ilA[V SpoF\"QOP R/qM KlSh[ANi AGRO pVT\" [-TID. \"\". RESll-'Jo[ lDlE[ l.li rhrouslr. Xj\"J:.5i.Itll arrd Ms' l(avita Jlra, B[5hlA[$ SP ROOP , % COMMISSNONFR OIE i \"/o coMMlssilohnER 0F ts[S$-ilAht SA,ROOP RA'M K[S[-iA . I rrrr t taln' | | rr vs:rr r' ! A.GRO P /'r. r.-TD. Mr. l(.P. Mall and Advocates (e) r.llA* r ro\"2096/?QJLQ . [['{COME T/ )( lArPPellllaunt Through: Mr. Prem Lata 13attsal, Sr' Advocat-e with Mr, DeePal< Anad, A dvocates . .; [[ {COME TAX ..\" rA6aPe[[an'[ Througlr: Mr. Prem Lata Battsal, 5r' Advocate with Mr. Deepal< Anad, Advocates Versus ;: R/AM lfl5fi-flAfi l l GR0 PVIT\" [-TD' \"\"\" IRESPOINIDE|i T' Througlr: Mt'. l<.P. Mall arrd Ms. l(avita Jlra, Advocates ( 1 1 ) nTA_I$ o \" 20 qryatp 10\" o/o COMM[55[ONIFR. OF lf cofivnE TAX ... l ppellla|i\"r'r Through: Mr, Prem Lata Bansal, Sr' Advocate witlr Mr. DeePal< Anad, Advocates /arcr rc vvtJvJ, ITA 5 No.1775 / 2OIO, tllA/ZOIQ, 1777 /2OIO, !965/2010,2032/20t0,2O33/ZO(O, 2034/2010,2035/2010, zoz a I zoto, 2037 / 20 ro, 2o3B / 2010, 2039 I 20 10, 20 46 I 2010 & 20 47 / 20 t0 Page 3 of 5 t\" @ rEB r 5 r-n A Nr 5A R o o P o^ *tl.ll3,my ^ffi f i.:'Yii 5il ?',.' ; \"' nffi t l$lly 5 HJ Advocates ( 12) lllfA liN.o*20r39/20 nCIr 'o/o' , CCI)MMIS5IONER OF IINCOME Tp X /Appeflllamt Through: Mr. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr', DeePal< Anacl, Advocates . Versus E}NShNPIIU SAROOP F\"AM K[S[-f,/ [V AGRO PVT, ILTD. ,\"\" RESPOIIUTDEIINT Through: Mr. l(.P. Mall and Ms. l(avita Jha, Advocates ( 1 3 ) ITA.j{P= 2 0t4'6.i49-!10 % ' - fr**MrssiorvHR oF t ??oT5J ',-rT. prem Lata Barr, ;;,1%%T33s with Mr. Deepa'l< Anad, Advocates Versus , VCI: : EISE-flAIV $d ROOp FrAM KnSil-[A[V /AGRO pVT\" [-1f8\" \".\" lRE5tl'}CI)fi lDlEhllli Tlrrouglr: Mr, l(.P. M,all and Ms. l(avita Jlra, Advocates (14) [T'A_[uo=2047/AtQnCI, % COMM[55[ON{ER OF IIUCOME ll\"AX .\" Appelllant ''rroush: H[r'i;?:r:H,?il*, l;,\"11I?:3\" Versus BIs[-nA[ SAROOp tsAM K[5l-ilAnU AGRO pvT',\" LTD. \"\"\" RIESPO[ lDEh,lllf Through: Mr, l(.P. Mall and Ms, l(avita Jha, Advocates sCIrm,nx{i hn0,Nn' B[-E M R,,!UST'ICE l \" K. 5n [{lRl t-{oNt, tsf-F MR,. JUSTfl CE M\"L\"MEFITA 1. Wliether th'e Repo;ters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes lTAs No.1775 / 2oIO, t776/2OLO, L777 /2Q10, L965/2010,2032/2010,2033/201,0,7034120t0,203512010, ' 2036/2OtO, ZOZ7 /ZOLO,2038/20tO,2039/20L0,2046/20]:0 & 2047 /2010 . Page4 of5 |, 2.Tobe referrecl to fleporter or not? ' 3. Whether the Judgment should be reportecl'in the Digest? t W 1. For ordet's see lTAl-775 of 2010. Yes Yes o 'r\"- May 2v, 70ln-1/ rd ' tTAs No.t775/ zOtO, 1776/2OtO,:.1777 /zOtO, !s6s/2ltO, )OZZ/ZOIO, 2O33/2OIO, ZOZq/Z.} O, IOZSiZOtO, 203 6 / 20 rO, 2037 I ?O tO, 2038 / 2010, 2O3g' / 20 0, 20 46 / 2OrO & 20 47 i ZO tO Pagc 5 ol-5 + (1) ITA Jrlo.3.77sl20n0 % Darte of Decision: ItAaY 27, .2077 COMMISSIOINEF{ OF IIVCOME'l'AX. .... Appefllant ' lrrousr-r: il[^tffi']'\"'\"1T\"7il.*, to'onll?:3t\" Versus BlS[-lAN SFIROOF RAM Kl5frflA.l{ AGFTO PVT. N-TD. ... RESPOIVDEfl XT' .Througir: Mr. K.P. lvlall and Ms. Kavita Jlra, Advclcates (?) !-ta ruo \" rzza;lzal lQ o/o coi* M r s s ro tN E P' t o t ?,ffi 5,J^**,. pretr', Lata Ba ns, | :';lt[?Ln3$ t.,*rlith lt4t' Deepak Anad' Advocates B,tSl-[/ M SAROOP R/ M K[5[-14 l{ ,qcn{} piJ'T. LTD\" ... frlESPOn{pEAIT Througlr: . Mr..l(,F'. Mall and Ms, l(avita Jha, Advocat-es % (3 ) IHU o . ]' 7 7'/ i?9J-s. COMMISSIONER. Of- INCOIWE 'l-A)( .. Appellant :'rrousrr: ill,ntffin'#.?ilTj, T;,411?!3t\" . Versu.s Bist-Mrht $AROOP R,An4 KlSl{At{ AGF.O P /'r\" LTD; ... R.ESPONbEIVT' . Thj'cLrgh: 14r. K.P. lvlall ancl' Ms, Kavita .llra, Advocates ( 4 ) UA_[ds'--1-9.6 rygo 1 q, % COMM|SSIOIVER OF il lCqME '[',U( .,. Appetrlartt Through: . Mr. Prem Lata Bansal, 5r. Advocate r with [t1r. Deepdl< Anad, Advocates ffAs t'to.1775i 2OtO, r776/2q.A, U77 /zO:.Q,1,)65/2C10.203';./2O!O,2Lt33/2O'10,2.13,r/2OtO,2D3S/2OI1, 2036/20'J.0, 2037 /2010, 2038/Z0t0t 2039/2C:.0, 2046/7-0tO & 2047 /2o1o i Page L ot 23 tr .! .t Versus Bl5l{/qr'l SAROOP Rl M K[S[-[AIV AGRO PVT'. !-'lrD. .\". RESPOIUDEfiilT rhroush: X;;Jl.5iuIu,' and Ms. l(avita Jlra, (5) ilT',A, rVo. 2Od2l2O10 o/o COMMISSIONER OF [[ ICOME T'AX .. Appenlan'rt Through: Mr. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr: Deepak Anad, Advocates Versus BI5[-[A[ I SAR.OOP Rl M KISI{AMGRO pVT. [_T'D. ... RE5POIUDEIVT Through: Mr. K.P. Mall and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates (6) lli-A iVo.2033/20n o % COMMISSIOI IER, OF IINCOME T'AX ...\" Appellamt T[rrough: Mr. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate witlr Mr. Deepal< Anad, Advocates Versus tsl5l-{Alv SAROOP Rl M K[St-tAN AGRO pVT'. I_T',D. ... RE.5PO][VDE[VT Tlrrough: Mr. K.P. Mall and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates (7) [TP [V'o\" 2O34l2oXO 3\"\"*M[ss[oilnrn, oF rr',,!comE TAX : ... aeroellasxt . i Thro.ugh: Mr. prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate i with Mr. Deepak Anad, Advocates Versus tsIsHA[ I SAR.OOP R,I M K[S0-XAN AGRO FVT\" N-TD. ... RE5POhNEENIT Through: Mr. K.P. Mall and Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocates % (B) [T'A t o.203S/2O].0 lTAs No.17751 2OrO,,:.:776/2OtO, t777 /?O1,O, rg6s/2OtO,2O32/2O:]O,2O33/2Ot0,2034/20L0,203;/2OLO, 2036 /20L0, 2037 / 2010, z03g/ 20t0, 2039 /2010, 2046 / 20L0 & zo47 l2oro . Pagez of 2? COMMISSIONIER OF II ICOME lfA.X .. ApSaeflflanlt Througlr: lvlr. Prem Lata Bansal, 5r. Advocate ' witlr Mr. Deepal< Anad, Advocates Versus : B r s r-r A'ru sr R o o P * *tfH,, i \"ffi l\"oiJut 5,I*, \" d ^tr tfr?,y 5 trJ Advocates (9) ITA [ 1o\"2036/2CIn0 '% coMMrssloruER *t l ??ff5'J ,. prem Lata Bansr',';f%ffiHl$ .with Mr. Deepal< Anad, Advocates Vgrsus I . ts[SHrqlV SAROOF R,Alvl K[50'iANl AGRO PVT'. !-TD. ... [qESPOIUDEnUT Tirrough: Mr., l(.P.'Mall and Ms. l(avita Jha, Advocates (10) ! frA mlo.2o37l2@lt0 % ' coMMxssro*'R oF ' l##5J^\"tr. prern Lata Bans.,,';f%B?LnlS with lvlr, Deepak Anacl, Advocates Versus EIS!-!A[V SAROOF [qAM K[5fi.NAAJ I GRO P /I-. LTD. ... RESPOI DEfiNT Tlrrorrqh: Mr. l(.P. Mall and Ms. Kavita Jha, .Advocates - o/o (r1) lIA lvo'Zclss/2-on-q COivlM[55[O[ {ER OF INICOME T'AX ,,.. Apnaellamt . .. Thror-rglr: Mr. Piem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advogate with'Mr. Deepal< Anad, Advocates Versus rTAsNo.177sl 2010,1776/2010,L777/2010,1g65/2OtO,'2032/2010,2033/20t0,2034/201.0,2035/2010, 203 6 / 2070, 2037 / 20 r0, 2 039 / zo].o, 2o3e / 2oto, 20 46 / 20L0 & ? o 47 / 2o1.o Page 3 of 23 ,0 BIsFIAIV SAR.OOP RAM KISI{ANI AGR@ PVT\" [-TD. ,.. R.ESPONilDENT Through: Mr. l(.P. Mall and Ms. l(avita Jlra, Advocates (12) nT'^q [so.zq3e/?qnq % COMMISSIOIUER OF IIUCOME TrqX .. Appellarnt . -flrrough: Mr. Prem Lata Bansal, 5r. Advocate witlr Mr. DeePak Anad, Advocates Versus Bnsl-ilAl l s/- ROOP R,AM K[SI-!AN AGRO PVT'. !-T',D. ... R,EsPOff{iDENqr Tlrrough: Mr. K.F. Mall gnd Ms. Kavita Jlra; Acivocates ( 13) [1]-A Nlo. 20zl-612On0 % co M.M t 5 5 [o hl E R o F I FI Q@$45,J^nr, pr.e m Lata e u n, u t,'sfYrffi Ln3#: -with Mr. Deepal< Anad, Advocates Versus B[S[{l t{ SAROOF RprM tQ.S!{/rN AGRO PVT'. [-T'D. ..' IRESF'OISDENJT Through: Mr. l(.P. Mall and Ms. l(avita Jlra, Advocates (14) !T'A tllo. 2o4Z20nr0 '% COMMISSIONER OF [NgOrulE TAX \".. Appellant . Tlrrouglr: Mr. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate ' witl-r Mr. Deepal< Anad, Advocates Versurs tsISI-!AIV SAR.OOP RAM [(ISF{AIV AGR@ PVT. LT'D. ... RESPOIUDFI IT' Througlt:' Mr. Kr,P. Mall and Ms. l(avita Jha, Advocates ggRAM: t-{oN'[3,[-E MFt. jUSTiCE 4. B(.5[KF{[ FnoN'Bt_tE,MR. jUST'ICE M \" n_. M E[-iTp 1. Wltether tfre Repofters of local papers lrAs No.!775/ 2O!O, 1]76/?010, t777 /2O7O, tg65/2)t1,2o32t)Orc,2033/20t0,7034/2010,203512J10, 2036,/ zOtO, 2037 /?OLA, 2038 / zOtO, ?_O39 /2O1O, 2046 / 2O:..O &. 20 t7 / 20!O P.tlie 4 of 23 l, . ',' 'rnay.be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To'be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether tlre judgment should be reported in tlre Digest? M,X-.MEHTA, l. (Oral) 1. The above 14 appeals are directed agairrst tlre common order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, \"the Tribunal\") dated 18th Septernber 2009 whereby tlre appeals filed by tlre Assessee against the order of CIT(A) were allowed and the cross appeals filed by the Revdnue were dismissed. Tlu following questions of law arose in all tlrese appeals: t. Whether the Ld. ITAT erred in law in holding tlrat tlre assessment order was barred by limi,tation? Wlrether the amendment to the proviso to Section 742(2C) of the Incomg Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 01.04.2008 was clarificatgry and'thus retrospective in nature? il. 2. The facts, as gatlrered fronr the inrpugned order, are tlrat tlre Assessee had filed its returns for different assessnrent years. There was a search conducted by the Revenue on tlr.e Assessee ori 7th October 2004. Tlre last pqnchnama was drawn on 6th Decenrber 2004. A notice under Section 1534 of the lncome Tax Act (for slrort, \"tlre Act\") was'issued upon the Assess.ee on 16th May, 2005. The assessee lTAs No.f 7sl 2or],1776/20!0, 777120t0, t96s/20L0,2032/2010,2033/201,0,2034/201,0,2035/2OIO, 2036/2010, 2037 /2O O, 2O3 /2O!O, 2039/2OtO, 2046/20],0 & 2047 /2_OtO Page 5 of 23 Y @ o filed retr-rrn in response to tlris notice. On 12th December 2006, tlre Assessing Officer ordered for conducting special audit as per tlre provisions of Section I42 (2A) of t[e Act and gave 90 days time i.e' up to 12th March 2OO7 to submitthe report. The Auclitor made a requestto the Assessing Officer for seeking extension of time for conrpletion of audit stating that the Asses.see did not co-operate irr the proceedings. Consequently, Assessing Officer extended the tinre fronr 12th Mbrclr, 2007 to 20th April, 2OO7, Tlre Assessing Ofiicer again extended the time for completion of tfre special audit up to 2Qth May, 2007. T[e AO again, . forthe third tjme, extendecl the time for completion of special audit up to 5th'June, 2007, The aqdit report uncJer Section L42(28) of tlre Act came to be subnritted by the Auditor on 4t^ June, 2007. Tlre AO ;lassed the assessment orcJer under Section 1534 ancl 143(3) of the Act ott 3'd August, 2OO7 . 3. \"These appeals against the rlifferent orclers ot' the Assessing .Officer came to be dispoqecJ of by CIT(A) vide differetrt orders. Some of , the issues on merits'werq decided by CIT(A) against the Revetrue and sonre against the Assessee. The issue regarding limitation of finalization of assessment under Section 153,A was decided against the Revenue. The cross appqals field by the Assessde and tlre Revenue agaihst the order of CIT(A) were disposed of by the Tribunal vide impugned order only on the issue of limitation. Since Llre issue of limitation of finalization of assessment wqs decided against the lrAs No.17751 2oto,1776/201;0, 1777 l2ot1, tg6s/20to,2032/2010,2033/201.0,2034/2010,2035/2010' 2036/20tO,2037 /zOtO,2O3E/2]]:O,2C39/20rO,2046/20!0 &2047 /2O!O page 6 of 23 I revenue,theTribunaldidnotchoosetodecidetheotherissuesraised on merits. 4,TheTribunaIlreldthat.!|reAocouIclnot.|raveextendedt|retime forauditgr,sreportonhisowninasmuclrasthispoweroftlreAoto extendthetinre.ofa,uditrep.ortsuomotuunderSection]-42(2C)can.]e to be inserted by way of an amendment vlith effect.from 1't April, 2008'Consequerrtly,hehe|cltheassessmentmac|eunderSectionl53A oftheActinrespectoftheaSsessmentyearsinquestion.tobebarred r challenged bY the by lirnitation' lt is this i'mpugned orcler that has been Rbvenue bY waY of these appeals' 5.Thereisngdisputewit|.rrqgardtothedates.Theorr|yissueis rvisionsofSectionJ'42(2^)'(2C)and with regard to interpretation of provislons or seLLrur 1538(1) Exptarration (ii). For betier understanding t5ese Sections are reproduced herei nbql br'v: ' 1'42' Enquiry befare 'assessrxnent'-(7) For tll\" purpolre oi mutcing an assessmenf-'under this Act' the ns,\"'sing Cfficer-may serve on a'ny person who has ntade a return under iiction 775WD or Section T39 orinWhosecasetnetii,eallowedundersub-section (1)'o'i'iiition't3gforfurnishingthereturnhas . expired a notice '\"qii'ing him' -on a clate to be therein sPecified'' . XXX tQA) tf, at any sta-ge of the ptt?:1i:gs before him' tl'te [Assessing Officer']' havi'ng regard'b the nature una\"'J'ipt;;ity of tn'e'aciouitt oT tnu assessee and tn-' i'\"ti'[\"iit 9r tne ivintte' is of the \"P!!:\"i-:13:'i': is necessary 50' to clo' he 'nay'' with the pnu'oy:\" '\"^' lrAsr.lo.1775l zoro,L716120!0,r71i/zo!o,rnitr'oro,;-ozzlzo,to;-zo3.3l2oto')-03412010'203s/'20t0' ' )ii i t r*\"i, ^=, t ro to,'o=a t:'l'o' zoig I zo to' 20 46 I zo $ & ?'0 47 I 20 1'o \"'age7 of 2?' Y, approval of the fChief Commissioner or ' Commissionell clirect t/re. assessee ' to get the . accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, ' nontinated by the [Chief ,.Commissioner o.r Commissionerl 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] ntay iequire; '[Provided tha.t the Assessing Officer shall not direct the as5essee to get the accounts so audited unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.l. [(28) The provisions of sub-section (2A) shall have effect notwithstanding that the accounts. of the assessee have been dudited under any other law for the time being in force or otherwise'l , tQC) lvery report under sub-sectiort '(2A) shall be furnished. by the assessee to the fAssessing'Officer] within' such period as may be specified by the [Assessing OffiCer]: Provided that the Assessing Officer may, Suo motu, or on an application made in .this behalf by. the assessee anc! for any good and sufficient re'ason, extencl the Said period by such further period or periods as fie thinks fit; so, however, that the period or periods so extended shall not, in any .case, exceed one hundred and eighty days front the'date on which the direction under sub-section (2A)is received by the assessee. L53ts.' (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in ' secti6n 753, the' Assessittg Officer shall ntake an order of assessment or reassessment,- (a) in .respect of each assess/??ent year falling within six assessn're nt years referred to in clause (b) o1 z3[sub- ' section (1) ofL section 7534, within a period of two years ffom the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisa'tions for search under section 1-32 or for' requisition under section l-32A was executed; lTAs No.1775l zOtO, L776/.20l:0, 1777 /2O1O, ]:965/20i:0, 2O32/20!O, 2O33/20LO, 2034/2OIO, 203s/2010, 2036 /z.OtO, 2037 /7OrO, 2038 /2010, 2Q39 / 20L0, 2046 I 2010 & 2047 /20rO - Page& ol 23 @ (b) in respect of the assessme nt year relevant to the previous year in which.search is cottducted under . sectiot\"t L32 or requisition is made under section J-32A, within q period of two years from the end of the financial ye?r in which the last of the authorisations for search under section 732 or for requisition under section 132A was executed : ' [trr'ovided that in case of other person referred to in section J-53C, the period of limitation for making the assessn?e nt or reassessment shall be the period as referred to in clause (a) or clause (b)'of this sub- section or one year from the end of the financial year . in which books of account or documents or assets ' seized or requisitioned are handed over under. section 153C to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiCtion Qver such other person, whichever is Iater:l [trrovided further that in the case where the tast . of the authorisations for search under sectiott'732 or . for requisition under section 732A was executed' during the financial year comnlencing on the 7st day . of April, 2004 or any suhsequent financial year,- (i)the provisions of clause (a) or clause'(b) of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words \"twO years\" the ry.ords \"twenty-one months\" had been substituted; ' (ii)the period of lintitation for making the assessmenf or reassessment in case of.other person referred to in section 753C, sha'll be the period of twenly-one ' rnonthg from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorisations for search under sectian . 732 or for requisition under section 732A was executed or nine months from \"the end of the financial yeAr in vthich books of account or docuntents or assers seized or requisitioned are ' handed over under section 753C to the Assessittg Officer havinE jurisdiction ove.r such other person, whichever is later:l Fr.avialed alsa that in case where the last'of the 'authorisationg for search under section 732 or for requisition under section 732A was executed 'during the financial year comnlencing on the 7st day of April, 2005 or any subsequent.financial year and tTAs No.L775l 2010, 1776/2010,1777 /2Ot0, 1965/2O!O,2032/20],0,2033/2OtO,2O34/2O1O,2035/2010, 2036/2010,2037 /2010, 2039/2010, 2Q39/2010, 2016/2010 & 2047 /2010. Page I of 23 during the course of the proceedings for the assessnrent or reassessment of total income, a . reference under sub-section (7) of section 92CA-:- (i) was made before the 7st day of June, 2007 but an order under sub-section (3) of section 92CA has not been made before such date; or .(ii) is n'tade on or after the 7st day of June, 2007, . the peilod of limitation for making the assessrnent or' reassessment'in case' of such other person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of ' the second proviso, 'be the period of thirty:three months front the end of the financial year in whiclt the last of the authorisations for search under section 732 or for fequisition under section 732A was executed or twentv.one months front the end of the financiat yea', iri which b\"ooks of accourtt or ' documents pr assets seized or requisitioned are handed over under section 753C to the Assessing ' Officer haviqg. jurisdiction ovei suclt other person, wltichgve.r is later.l Exptanation.-ln computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section,- (i) the period during which the assessment praceeding is stayed by qn order or injunction of any court; or . '(ii) the period comn'tencing fron't the day on .which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts auQited under sub-section (2A) of section ' 742 and endinq on the dav on which the assessee is required to fqinish u repoTt of such audit under that sub-section;.or xxxxx (2) Tfie auttlorization referred to in clause'(a) and clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been executed. (a) in the case of search, on the conclusion of seafch as recorded in the Iast panchnama, drawn in - relation to any person in vtrhose case the wrarrant of^ . authorization has been issued;.. (b) in the case of recluisition under Section 7324, on . the actual regeipt of 'the books of account or other documents or assets by the Authorized Officer.l lTAs lio.17751 2070, t77612010, 1777 izLll,1965/2010,2032/20t0,2033/2010,2034/2010,2035/2010, zolg/'zttto, 2037 /2010, 2o3B / 2oro, 2o3s /2010, ?.046/ 2o::o & ?047 l2oro Page 10 of 23 6. Seiction 142 provides the procedure for the enquiry tlrat is required before making assessment, Sub-sectiorr (2A) provides for conducting special audit during the procebdirrgs of assessment..Tlris sub section pt-ovides that if at any. stage of tlre probeedings, tlre Assessing Officer was of the opirrion, having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of ttre Assessee and in the interest of revenue so to do, he may direct the Assessee to get the accounts audited by the Accountant in the n-ranner prescribed tlrerein. Sub section (2C) provides thit every audit report under sub section (2A) is to be furnislred by the Assessee to the Assessing Officer within suclr . period as may be specifled by tlre Assessing Officer. lt was submitted by the learned counsel for the Assessee that tlle assessment order passdd under Section. 1534 on 3'd August, 2007 was barred by lirnitation insofar as, the order of special audit was nrade bV ifre Assessing Officer on 12th December 2006 and tlre special audit.was to be conducted on or before 12th Marcl't, 2007. Fle submitted that the Assessing Officer did not have inlrereht power to extetrd time under sub Sections (2A) or (2C) of Sectiorr I42 of the Act and tlre time could only be extended at'the fequest of the Assessee and consequerrtly the . limitation as.iler Explanation (ii) to Section 1538(1) for the pulrpose of cornputing assessrnent eXpired on 11th May,2OO7. He also s.ubmitted tlrat the power to suo ntetu extencl the period for special audit under Sectiorr I42(2A) hqs been provided in tlre proviso to section IA.2QC) by lrAs No.17751 2OtO, r776/2OtO, 1777 /2OtO, 1g65/20t0,2032/20::0,2033/2010,2034/2010,2035/2010, 2O36/2OhO, 2037 /2O O, 2038/201,0, 293s/2OrO, 2O46/2OLO & 2047 /2O1O PaEe LL of 23 the Finance Act, 2008 with effect fronr 1\" April, 2008 and the same ireing prospective in nature, the AO was not enrpowered to extend tlre time for auclit report of his own. The learned counsel also placecl reliance u.pon the Menroranclum explairiing the provisioirs of finance bill, 2008 and also the circular No.1 issued by CBDT dated 27tr'March, 2009. The said Mernorandum and Circular slrall be referred to a litter later. 7. Tlris was'nqt in dispute that the word 'suo motu'.came to he inserted by way. of an amendnrent witlr effect front 1't April, 2008. However, it was contenclecj by learned counsel for the Revenue. that the Assessing Officer had.tlre porver to extend the tinre of audit report uncler Section I42(2C) pf the Act since tlre word \"and\" appearirrg before the worcJs \"for any good and sufficient reasons\" was to lre reacl as'or'.' In.otlrer words, tlre submissions of the learnecl counsel was that the Asdessing Office r suo.motu had tlre power to direct Lhe assessee to get audiL report and also to extend the tinre for sr-rbrnission of ar-rcJit report. Learned.counsel relied uporr cases of lagjit SuEar MitrXs Co. tr-td.vs. CXT, 270 ITR 468 (Punjqb & Haryana); CXT v trwttuuttl@taln Estat'es [-td. L27 l-fR 481 (Madras), p.V. Uevassy v.'CXT t1g72] 84 tTR 502 {Kerala} arrd C/i- v GanEararn. CtaapoXia, 703 tTR 673 (Orissa). lTAs No.17751 20!O, 1776/ZOto, 1777 l2o o, 796s/217o,2O32/2O7O, 2O33/2OLO, 2O:J4/2O]O, 2O3s/2010, 2036/20i0, 2037 /2010, 2138i20t0, 2039/2oro, 2o46/2jto & 2047 l2oLO Page 1'2 ol 23 ,@ : B. ln laEjit SuEar MiMs Co. Lt'd (supra), tlre Flon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana lracl treatecl tlre word \"and\" appearing between tlre words \"application made by the assessee\" and \"for any good and sufficient reasons\" Litrde.p Sectiorr I42 ('2C) as'lor\" and [ad held tlrat period for subrnission of peport by the Special Auditor is eiterrdable by the Assessing Officer, even without an applicatiorr in this regard by the ASSCSSEC, 9. ln case of C/Tr v trt4ttnu{'f'tlrtarn Fsfates f-tc/. (supr-a).it was lreld tlrat, \"The cit.'cutnstances under which the word \"and\" ntay 'be construed as \"or\" and vice'versa should be sornewhat rare. Otherwise , if the two are taken to be iqterchangeable ternls, then it would result in Parliament throwing into the stafute the ' two expressiotts indiscriminately and leave them to the courts to sort out the meanirtg. tn ordinary usage \"and\" is conjunctive ancl \"or\" is disjunctive\". 10. In the case of F. i. pevassv v. C/?- (supra), it was held as uncJer: \"An assessee is reqtiired to file the return within the . time allowed and in the manner prescribed in order that the lncctne. Tax Officer may complete the ' ass essment'w.ithin the period specifiect in the lncome Tax Act. tf the return is not fited in time or, if fited in lTAs No.L775l zOtO, t77(,/2r|]0, :]777 /201,0, 7s6'.it2OtC,2O32/20rO,2C33/2OLC,2O34/?-OLO,2O3s/2OrA, 2036/2.0!0/ 2037 /20tO, ZO38 / 20].0, 2039 / 2010, 2.046 / }OLO & 2047 /2010 Page 13 of 23 /@ time, it does not contain all the particulars required, it witt not be possible for the tncome Tax Of'ficer to comptete the asses sment withitt the period specified in the Act. ln other words, the obiect of the legislature in insisting upon t/re assessee fiting the return within the time and. in the 'rnanner prescribed is to enable . the lncom? Tax Officer to com'plete the assessntent within a period of four years as specified in the Act and that object witl be frustrated unless t/re assessee fites the retqrn within the tirie allowed and in the mannei presiribed. To carry out the obiect of the legislature, it is necessary to attac!'t a sanction for the' failure to fulfi.lt any of the.two conclitions.'lf the obiect is cleai, we do not think the use of the coniunctive. word '.'ancl\" in the sub seclion is conclusive. The word tta^A\" h=e aanayatly a cumulative sense, and is thus I ottu rta> gcttEtauy a LurrtutsLtv the antithesiq of disjunctive \"or\"; but occasionalty it is pern'tissibte to read \"and\" as \"or\" if t'he context\"so requires. ln istlwar SinEk tsindra v, St'a't'e of U,F,, it is observed; \"And has generally a cuntulative sense, requiring the fulfiltment of att the conditions that it ioins together . and herei'n rt is the antithesis of or. Son'tetimes, lTAs No.17751 20rJ, r771lZOtO,1777 120].0,196s/20r0,2032/2010,2033/201.0,2034/2o1o,2o3s/20ro, 2036/20t0, 2037 /2O]:O, 2c3q/2010, 2Q39 / 20].0, 2046 /20:'0 & 2047 / 20to Page 14 of ?-J how,euer, even in such a connection, it is, by force of . a context, reads as or. Sometintes to carry outt th.e ' intention of the tegistature it'is found necessary 'to read the coniunctions 'or' and 'and' cne for the other. In Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, T2tn . edition, at page 232, it is observed, \"ln ordinary usage, and' is coniunctive and 'or' disiunctive. But to ': carry out the intention of the tegistature it ntay be ne.oqqar / tq read 'and' in place of the conju.nction 'or' ancl vice versa.\" 11. ln the case of CIT ys. GanEararn Ckapolia (supra), it.was lreld * -/ as uncler; \"/:;t -rh^ '^njunctive \"and\" in the seccnd clause of . Iil,l t IIE cu section 277(7)(a) shoutd be coisilued as. \"or\". Therefore, ev.cn if the return of the assessee had been fited in the manner prescribecl, as it was not : . fited within the time allowed under section 139(1), -.'- and as suclt one of the'two conditions prescribed in section 271(L)(a) had.not been'futflllecl, the assessee woulc! be tiable to peialty.\" tTAsNo,1775l 2O1O,1776/?OtO,t777/2010,1965/2010,2O32/2O1O,2033/20t0,2034/20t0,2035/2OLO, 2036/201:0, 2037 l2oro, ?-o38/207o, 2839/2oto, 2046/2070 & 2047 /?07o PaEa 15 of 23 I i I I 12. lt.is a cardirral principle for interpreting a fiscal statute tlrat, a taxing statute has to be construe.d very stiictty and has to be reacl without arnehding or alterirrg tlie provisions. The irrtention of tlre legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from tlre language of the . provisions particulariy where . the . language is plairr arrd unamolouous. 13. The Supreme Court iri ttre case of Mathurann lAEEarwal v Sfat'e of Madhya Fradesk, B SCC 667[1999] held that, : \"ln a taxing Act'it is not possibie to assunte any intention or governing purpose of the statute .more than whatis Sfated in the plain language. It is rtot the economic results sought to be obtained by ntaking the provision which is.relevant in.interpreting a fiscat stafute. Equallf irnpermissible . is an i4ti:rpretation whic:h does not fotlow from the plain, unambigrtous language of lhe statute. vVords cannot be added ta . or substitutec! so es to give a mearting of the statute .wttich will serve the spirit and intention of the ' legisldture. The staL'ute sl'tould ctearly anC unambigulusiy con,ley the three components .of the tax law, i.e., the' subiect of the tax, the person v'tho is liable to pay lhe tax ai':d the rate at r,tl'tich the tax is l'iAs No.1775l 2O7O,1776 2010,1777 /2C!O,7965/2OtO, ?-032/20L0,2O33/2Ot0,2034/2Ot0,20?5/2OLO, 2036 / 20 ro, 2037 /2OtO, 2O3B /,2010, 2Q.39./ 20L0, 2046 / 2110 & 2047 / zoto Page L6 of 23 ,@ o to be paid . tf there is any ambiguity regarding any of these ingredients in a taxation statute then there is no tax in law. Then.it is for the tegislature to d.o the needful in the matter.\" 14. lrr thd case of f {asiruddin .and,ottlers v Sft'a Rann AEarwa[ 2 SCC 577 (2003), it is held: '. \"37. The court's iurlsclictiott to interpret a statute ' can be invoked when the same is iantbig.uous. lt is ' well known that in a given case the court can iron out the fabric, btrt is cannot change the texture of the . , fabric. lt cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or . intention whgn the language of provision is plain and ' unambiguou.q. lt cannot add or subtrait words to a statute or read soimething into it which is not t:here. lt cannot re-wfite or ,recast legislation. lt is' also necessary to determine . that there exists a presuryption that the legislat.ure has not used any superfluous words. lt is well settled that the real intentipn of the legislation must be gathered front the langua.ge, used. lt may be true that use of the expression \"shall\" or may\" is no't decisive for arriving ' a finding as to whether , statute is directory or mandatory. B,ut the intention of the legislature must ' be found oUt'fron't lhe schem.e of the Act. It is also equally wdlt settled that when negative words are usec!, the courts will presume thbt the intention of : lTAs No.17751 2OtO,I776/2OtO, 1777 lllrc, $65/2OtO,2132l2oto,2033/2010,2034/2010,203s/20L0, 2036/2010, 2037 /2010,2018/2010, 2039/2010, 2046/20t0 & 2047 /20L0 Pagel7 of23 o the .legislature was that m a n d atorY i n ch ara cter. \" the provisions should be' a, 15. with these principles of irrterpretation, we may note tlrat l-lre provisions as existing irr sutr.section (2c) of the Act before 1't April' 2008 did not empower the Assessing officer to suo motu extend the time for submissipn of ar-rdit report under 5ub section (2A)' This is also clear.from the fact that the Memorandum explaining the provisions of grarrting power. to the Assessing officer to. extend time for completiorr of special audit r,'',ldu,. sub sectio6 (2A) of Section 142 merrtions about thereasotrsinthesaidMernowhic|rreadsaSunder: ,,GrantingofpowertotheAssessingo{.ficerto.extenc! the timi for completion of special audit under sult- section'(2A) of sbction L42 Sub-sections. (2A) to (2D) of section 742 deal witlt . power of Assessing officer to order a special aud.it. Such power is required to be exercised by the Assessingofficerhaving'regardtothenatureand complexity of the accoJnts or tne assessee and the inteiest of the Revenue' ,ub-section(2C)ofthesaidsectionspecifiesthe perioQ within whiclt the auclit report is to be furnishec!,Theprovisotosaidsub-sectionempowers- theAssessingofficertoextendthisperiod..of/ furnishing of Su41 report. Further, it is also provided. tnat fie;ggregate of the originatty fixed period and . the perioaTl) s-o extended shatt not exceed 780 days rrom.tneaateofissuance.ofdirectionofspecial audit.Furthier,suchextensionCanbernadeonly whei an application is ntade in this behalf by the . assessee and there.are good and sufficient reason for such extension Itisproposecltoanlendthesaidprovisosoastoalso' at|owtheAssessingofficertoextendthisperiodof lrAs No.L77sl 2o o,7776/,irou},7777 /zOtO, Lg65/20I0,2032/2010,2O33/20!O,zO34lZOto' 2o3s/2oI0' 2035/2070,2037/2010,2038/ZOLO,2O39/20t0,204612010&2-047l20to ' Page 18 of 23 ) t; a' I ' furnishing of audit report suo motu. Hence, while the Assessing Officer shall continue to have power to grant exte'nsi'on on an application made in this behalf bV the assessee and when there are good and sufficient 'reasons for such extension, he can also grant s.uch extension on his own. . fne'amendrtent will take effect fiom 7't April, 2008' 16. Further, the circulSr No.1. of cBDT dated 27th March, 2009 lras also clarified on the issue of applicability of tlre aforesaid amendment in sub section (?C) witlr effect from 1't April, 2008. The saicl circular read's as under:- \"DirectTax Qircular No.7 dated 2-7tn March, 2409 Explanatory Notes to the Provisictns of the Finance Act, 2008. L. IntroductiOn: 1.1 'flre Finance Act, 2008 (hereafter ' tlre Act) as passed by tlre Parliament, asseni of ihd President on the 1Otr' day and has been enacted as act No.lB circular exp!ains the substance of tlre referi'ed to as received the of May, 2008' of 2008. Tlris provisions of f the Act relatirrg to direct taxes. 21. Grariting of power of the Assessing Otficer to extend the tirne for completion of special audiL uirder ' sub-section (2A) of section 142. 27.I Sub-sejctions (2A) to (2D) oF section 142 with power of Asgessing Officer to order a special audil-' Suclr power if r-equired to be exercisecJ by tlre ' Assessing Officer lraving regard to the nature and complexity of tlre accounts of the assessee arrd the ' interest of. tl're revenue. 27 .2 5ub-sectiQrns (2C) of the said sectiorr specifies the period witlrin wlrich tlre audit report is to be ' furrrished. T[e provis;o to said sub-section elnpowers ' the Assessing Officer to extend this period of I ' furnishing pf audit repori:. Further, it is also provided that the agg;egate cf the originally fixed period and the pqriod(s) so extencled sirall trot exceed 180 days tTAs o.17751 }OLO, 776!2(tLO,:-|771/zOtO, L}65/2OIO,2A3'/.!2O-1.O,2033/2010,2034/2010,2035/20t0, 2O3b / 2OIO, 2037 /aOLO,'2039 / 2010, 20'59 I 20 ro, 2046/2J10 {t, 2017 / 20]..0 PJge Lg of 23 ': from the date of issuance of clirection of specific audit. Further, such extension can be nrade only ' when an application is made in this behalf by the assessqe and there are good arrd sufficient reasons for such extension' 27'3'WithaviewtorationaIizethesaidprovisoSoas . to also allow the Assessing officer to extend this periqd ef furnishing of ar-rdit report suo motu, the said . ' proviso has' been amended' llence, while the Assessing Officer shall continue to lrave power to grarrt extlnsion on an application made ip tlris.5ehalf OV the assessee and wlren tlrere are good and ' suficient reisons for such extension, he can also grant such eitensiolr'on his ourn. 27 .4 'Applicability - This amendment lras been made applicable with eftect frorn 1-4-2008. Hence,'fronr this date and onwards, tlre Assessing officei shall . also have power to extend the period of furrrishing oi audit report Euo motu\". (Emphasis Supplied) i17. The Memo explaining the.provisions of Finance Bill, 2008 attd also Circular No.1 clated 27th'March, 2009 of CBDT as reproduced hereinabove woujd cle.arly brilg out that sub section (2A) to (2D) of Section-142 cleal With the powers of tlre Assessing Oflicer to order l'or special auclit arrd the same was to be exercisgd by him lravirrg regard to tlre nature and comple>:ity of the account of the assessee ancl tlre interest of the revenue. 18. Tlre word \"and\" aBpearing before the words \"for any good and sufficient reasons\" in tfiq pi'oviso to sub section (2C) by any stretclr of interpretation could not be reacl as \"or\". The fact that the words \"scro motu\" lrave been addeQ by way of an anrendnrent witlr effect fronr 01.04.2008 would show the legislative inter'tion in tlre proviso as existed before the arnendment which is that the Assessirrg Officer prior lTAs Nci.17751 2010, I776/2010,1777 /2010, ]:965/2010,2032/2010,2033/20rc,2O34/20t0,'203s/2o o, 2o36/ZOtO, 2037 /20t0,2038/2OtO, 293s/2OtO, 2046/2010 & 2047 /2Or0 Page20 of 23 I i , @ to amendment had no power to extend tlre period of furrrishirrg audit report of his own, lg.ltwastorationalizethesaidprovisothattheword\"sLlonlotLl\" came to be addecl [y way of amenclntent witlr effect from 1't .April , 2008. As per Clause 27.3 of tlre Circular dated 27th Marclr, 2009 while the'Assessirrg Officer shall ccntinue to have tlre power to grant' extension on an application made in this behalf by the AssesSee, lre ;t coulci also grant extension oi his own .wlietr there are good and sufficie.nt reasons for sUclr extension. Thus, it is noticed tlrat sulr section (2c) before the amendment did not empower the Assessing Officerto extend tlre time for submissions of special aurdit report under . sub Section (2A). Further, tlre power of extension of time for subnrissiorr oi special audit report is also subject to tinritation of a period of 180 days from the date on wlrich tlre directions uncler section L4Z(2A) of flre Act for the audit was received by tlre Assessee. lt is an . adrnitted fact t[at in the prese,nt case, the.assessee lrad not.nrade atry application for extension of periocJ . of audit report. Therefor-e, tlre . extensiotr whiclr was granted by. the Assessing Officer on'the request of the Auditor could be taken to be a suo motu action of the Assessing Officer which power, aS noted above, v/as not available, witlr tlre Assessing Officer prior to the amendment with effect fiorn 1't April, 2008, Not only thiS, said pdwer of extension was also furtlrer controlled trAsNo.L775l :zOLO,t776/2010,L777.lzltl,tg65/20:10,20321201C,2033/20t0,2034/i0rc,2035/2OtO, 2O36t 2O O, 2037 / 2OrO, ZO3E / 2OrO, 2O3g /2OrO, 2046 / z}rn * 2Oqz lzoto PaEeZI ol 23 ) t in the,words, \"for any good and sufficient reasons\". This would m.ean that the Assessing Officer was suppbsed to record reasons for grantirrg extension on his,?wn. Clause 27.4.of the.Circular also clarifies tlrat tlris amendment'h'as been made applicable with effect from 1't April, 2008 and. it is from this date onwarcjs that the Assessing OFficer slrall have power to extend the period of furnislring of special audit report suo . motu. 20. In the light of interpretation of the proviso as is existed before or after the amendment and the legislative intent behind the amendment as.gathered from the nremorandum and the circular noted above, we are not persuaded to agree with tlre interpretation as given by the Punjab and Haryiina High Couri in the case of Jagiit Sugar frrt|Xls Cornpany f-in'rifed (supra). Further in view of our above discussion, it. comes to be concluded.that the Triburral was correct in lrolding tlrat the Assessment Order was barred by limitation. That being so, we answer Question No,1 in affirmative in favour of the Assessee add : against the revenue. 21. In view of foregoilrg discussion that the anrendnrent wlrereby tlre word 'suo motu' were insertecl in sub section (2C) of Section 142.of tlre Act was to be applicable with effect froro l't April, 2008 only, the , 'amendment cannot be said to be clarificatory or retrospective irr lTAs No.177sl ZOIO, ttlg/ZOrO, 1777 /2OtO, 1965/2010,2032/2010,2033/20L0,2031/2070,2035/2010, 2o36/2OtO, 2037 /2010, 2038 / 2Or0, 2039 /2010, 2045 /2010 & 2047 /2010 P age 22 of 23 nature. The amendment was prospective and was to be applicable with effect front 1't April, 2008 only. Accordingly, we answer Question No'2 'against the revenue. . 22 In view of foregoing reasons, dismissal and are hereby dismissed. all 'the above 'aPPeals merit -& €0-q, M. [-\" M IEFITA - ur.lDGE) ' 1r' hP+,rY :J_L' ' _ . kq.K.slKRl ' ut,DGE) :l May 27, ZOXI rd lTAs Ncr.t 7751 2OrO, .1776/2010, t777 l2O!0, 1g65/20t0,2032/2010, 203?/2OtO, 2034/201,0' 7-03!'/211.0' 2036/2O1o, ?.037 |}OLO,2O38/2OLO, ?039/20ro,2046/?tt0 & 2047 lzQto Page?-3 of 23 "