RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF, Jaipur V. ITO, BEAWAR

ITA 1024/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1832 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P P MEENA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Question of law; Time period of passing order; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 69; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1024/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 SHRI RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF, M/S M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES, VILLAGE- SANTERA, NH-08, KOTPUTLI, JAIAPUR 303108. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD BEHROR, BEHROR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAHHR9332K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1025/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 SHRI RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF M/S M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES, VILLAGE- SANTERA, NH-08, KOTPUTLI, JAIAPUR 303108. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD BEHROR, BEHROR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAHHR9332K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.P. MEENA (J.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/11/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/12/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 2 THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 15.11.20 13 & 20.11.2013 FOR THE A.YS. 2001-02 & 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSES SEE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUNDS IN THESE APPEALS EXCEPT THE VARIATIO N IN QUANTUM OF ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS RAISED FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN INITIATING THE RE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE IT ACT 196 1 AND CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2. THE LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION U/ S 69 OF IT ACT OF RS. 290213/- ON ACCOUNT UNEXPLAINED DIFFERENCE I N CASH BOOK AND CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF REOPEN ING. THE ASSESSEE IS AN HUF AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILE S. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,88,040/- ON 31.03.2003 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). SUBSEQUE NTLY THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147/148 AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2003 ON TOTAL INC OME OF RS. 4,16,370. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. IN WHICH THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE HUF WAS A DIRECTOR. DURING THE SURVEY, A PRINTOUT O F CASH BOOK OF M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. FOR THE PERIOD 01.04 .2001 TO 28.06.2001 ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 3 WAS FOUND. AS PER THE SAID PRINT OUT THE AO OF THE SAID COMPANY FOUND THAT THERE WAS AN EXCESS PAYMENT OF RS. 11,44,658/- AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS MADE IN THE HAN DS OF THE COMPANY FOR WANT OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. THE SAID ADDI TION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 15.07.2009. THE COMPANY CARRIED THE MATTER TO THIS TRIBUNAL AND VIDE ITS ORDER DATE D 26.03.2010 IN ITA NO. 603 & 637/JP/07 THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE SAID A DDITION IN THE HANDS OF TIRUPATI AUTHOMOBILES PVT. LTD. BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT BELONGS TO M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES PROPRIETORSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE HUF IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE INCOME IF ANY ARISING F ROM SUCH TRANSACTIONS WAS HELD TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF M/S TIRUPAT I AUTOMOBILES INSTEAD OF TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. THE TRIBU NAL FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2001 IS R S. 5,61,872/- WHICH SHOWS THAT IT HAS CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEARS. HENCE, THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT OF OPENING BALANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AS NO EXACT CASH WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. ACCORDINGLY, THE T RIBUNAL GIVEN FINDING THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CASH WAS REQUIRED TO BE SUBSTANTIVELY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES/ HUF IN T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 4 TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 26. 03.2010 THE AO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND ISSUED A NOTICE U /S 148 ON 30.07.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED U /S 148 THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 10.08.2010 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN FILED ORIGINALLY BY IT TO BE TREATED AS FILED IN COMPLIAN CE THEREOF. THUS, IT WAS SECOND REOPENING BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJE CTIONS AGAINST THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 VIDE LETTER D ATED 04.05.2011 WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 11.05.2011. THEREAFTER, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 O N 01.12.2011. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO INCLUD ING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCE ED. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ON 30.07.2010 IS BARRED BY LI MITATION AS PROVIDED U/S 149 R.W.S. 150. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENTED THAT T HE AO WHILE REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIE D SECTION 150(1) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION ( 2) OF SECTION 150 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE PRESE NT CASE THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 30.07.2010 AND AS PER RESTRIC TIONS PROVIDED U/S 150(2) OF THE ACT THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 149 HAD ALREADY EXPIRED ON 31.03.2009. THUS, REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE I LLEGAL VOID AND THE ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 5 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED OR OVER LO OKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE COMPLI ANCE OF CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED U/S 150(2) IS MANDATORY ON THE PART OF THE AO BEFORE ISSUING THE TIME BARRED FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSM ENT PROCEEDING. SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 150 LAYS DOWN THE EXCEPTION THAT NO APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY CAN GIVE A DIRECTION TO MAKE A SSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN TIME BARRED AS ON THE DATE OF DIRECTION BY THE REASON OF ANY OTHER PROVISIONS LI MIT THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ANY ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MAY BE TAKEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACTED UPON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 26.03.2010 WHEREAS THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTIC E U/S 148 HAD ALREADY EXPIRED ON 31.03.2009. HE HAS RELIED UPON T HE DECISION OF HAIDERABAD BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF S. S ANKARA REDDY V/S AO (2005) 92 TTJ 223 (HYD). HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON TH E FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- ACIT VS. G. VISWANATHAM 73 CTR 123 (AP) SUNIL MALIK VS ACIT (2009) 123 TTJ 208 (DEL) COL. SIR HARINDER SINGH BRAR VS. ITO (2006) 282 ITR 371 (P &H) THUS, THE LD. AR HAS REITERATED THAT THE RELAXATION PROVIDED U/S 150(1) WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE AO BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICT ION PROVIDED U/S ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 6 150(2) AND IN THE CASE WHERE THE REASSESSMENT RELAT ES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH HAS ALREADY BECOME BARRED BY LIMITATION ON THE DAY WHEN THE DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN PURSUANT TO WHICH, THE RE ASSESSMENT ARE BEING INITIATED THEN THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150(1) IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE AO. THUS, THE LD. AR HAS ASSERTED THAT THE AO INITIATED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS OF THE ORD ER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON 26.03.2010 WHEREAS THE LIMITATION FOR I SSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 HAD ALREADY EXPIRED ON 31.03.2009 HENCE, REOPEN ING OF THE REASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF K.M. SHARMA V/S ITO 254 ITR 772. H E HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE APPELLATE OR REVI SIONAL AUTHORITY CANNOT GIVE SUCH A DIRECTION WHICH GOES TO THE EXTE NT OF CONFERRING JURISDICTION UPON THE AO WHICH HE WAS NOT HAVING LA WFULLY. ALTERNATIVELY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) PA SSED ON 15.07.2009 THEN EVEN ON THE SAID DATE THE TIME LIMIT FOR BOTH THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS WOULD ALREADY STOOD EXPIRED. IN SUPPORT OF HI S CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COU RT IN CASE OF CIT VS. VAIKUNDAM RUBBER CO. LTD. 249 ITR 19 (KER HC). THUS , THE LD. AR HAS PLEADED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ON 30.07.201 0 FOR BOTH ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 7 ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION AND CONSE QUENTLY REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ARE INVALID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LIMITATION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 148/147 OF THE ACT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE SEEN ON THE DATE WHEN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO IN CASE OF M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMO BILES PVT. LTD. AND WRONGLY ASSESSED THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE SAI D COMPANY INSTEAD OF IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HUF. AS PER THE ORD ER DATED 26.03.2010 OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILE S PVT. LTD. IT WAS HELD THAT THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE HUF AND FURTHER, THE ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN M ADE IN THE HANDS OF M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. AND THE INCOM E IF ANY ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSACTION WAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE REOPENING IN THIS CASE IS BASED ON THE DI RECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD FALL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150 OF THE ACT AND THE LIMITATION FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NO T COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 149 OF THE ACT. SECTION 150 O F THE ACT HAS AN OVERRIDING EFFECT ON SECTION 149 AND THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 MAY BE ISSUED ANY TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ASSESS MENT OR ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 8 REASSESSMENT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. GLASS EQUIPMENT (INDIA) LT D. 366 ITR 59 AS WELL AS DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PP ENGINEERING WORK 369 ITR 433. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO PROPOSED TO REOPEN THE A SSESSMENT OF THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2001-02 & 2002-03 VIDE NO TICE U/S 148 DATED 30.07.2010. THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE NOTICE IS SUED U/S 148 FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS BEYOND TH E LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 149 AS EXIST AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. FOR READING REFERENCE WE QUOTE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 149 AS UNDER:- 1 49. TIME LIMIT FOR NOTICE.- (1) NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 SHALL BE ISSUE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, (A) IF FOUR YEARS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE(B); (B) IF FOUR YEARS, BUT NOT MORE THAN SIX YEARS, HAV E ELAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE INCOME CHAR GEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS TO OR IS LIKELY TO AMOUN T TO ONE LAKH RUPEES OR MORE FOR THAT YEAR. EXPLANATION.IN DETERMINING INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, TH E PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 147 SHALL APPLY AS THEY AP PLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT SECTION. ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 9 (2) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) AS TO THE ISS UE OF NOTICE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151. (3) IF THE PERSON ON WHOM A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 IS TO BE SERVED IS A PERSON TREATED AS THE AGENT OF A NON-RESIDENT UNDER SECTION 163 AND THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION TO BE MAD E IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTICE IS TO BE MADE ON HIM AS THE AGENT OF SUCH NO N-RESIDENT, THE NOTICE SHALL NOT BE ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT IS CLEAR THAT NO NOTICE U/S 148 SHALL BE ISSUED IN ANY CASE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 6 YEARS, HOWEVER, THE LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 149 IS APPLICABLE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE AO ON ITS OWN ON THE BASIS OF FRESH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION FORMS AN OPINION THAT THE INCOME ASSESS ABLE TO TAX AS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SECTION 150 OF THE I.T ACT PROV IDES THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IN PURSUANT TO AN ORDER OF APPEAL, REVISION OR REFERENCE AND THEREFORE, THE LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 149 FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT PER SE APPLICABL E WHEN THE REOPENING IS BASED ON THE DIRECTIONS OF THE APPELLA TE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY OR AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT. SE CTION 150 OF THE IT ACT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 150. PROVISION FOR CASES WHERE ASSESSMENT IS IN PUR SUANCE OF AN ORDER ON APPEAL, ETC. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 149, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 MAY BE ISSUED AT ANY TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OR ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 10 RECOMPUTATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT T O ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY 1. THE WORDS' MORE THAN' OMITTED BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1989, W. E. F. 1- 4- 1989. AUTHORITY IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT BY WAY O F APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION 1 OR BY A COURT IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER ANY OTHER LAW]. (2) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (1) SHALL NOT APPLY IN ANY CASE WHERE ANY SUCH ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUT ATION AS IS REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB- SECTION RELATES TO AN ASSE SSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR REC OMPUTATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME THE ORDER WHIC H WAS THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF THE APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISIO N, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS MADE BY REASON OF ANY OTHER PROVISION L IMITING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ANY ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT, REASSE SSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION MAY BE TAKEN. THUS, AS PER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 150 THE LIM ITATION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 149 IS NOT APPLICABLE IF NOTICE U/S 1 48 IS ISSUED IN CONSEQUENCE OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDINGS OR DI RECTIONS CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHORITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT BY WAY OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION OR BY A COURT IN ANY PROCEEDING IN OTHER LAW. THIS ENLARGEMENT OF TIME PERIOD FOR ISSU ING THE NOTICE U/S 148 AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 150(1) IS ALSO NOT ABSOLUT E AND UNLIMITED BUT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS PROVI DED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 150 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, EVEN AS P ER DIRECTIONS OF THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY OR COURT THE TIME LIMIT AVAILABLE IS NOT ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 11 UNLIMITED FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE -COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME IS SUBJECT TO T HE CONDITIONS AS PRESCRIBED SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 150 OF THE AC T. SUB-SECTION (2) PUTS A CONDITION THAT UNLIMITED TIME PERIOD PROVID ED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL NOT APPLY IN A CASE WHERE SUCH ASSESSMENT , REASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION RELATES TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RES PECT OF WHICH ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION COULD NO T HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME OF THE ORDER WHICH WAS SUBJECT MA TTER OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION AS THE CASE MAY BE DUE TO TH E OTHER PROVISIONS OF PRESCRIBING THE LIMITATION WITHIN WHICH SUCH ASSESS MENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION MAY BE MADE. IN OTHER WORDS AS PE R SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 150 THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE-C OMPUTATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE APPELLATE, REV ISIONAL AUTHORITY OR THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT CAN BE MADE IF SUCH ASS ESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME THE ORDER WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL REVISION O R REFERENCE AND NOT HIT BY THE LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 149 OF THE ACT A T THAT POINT OF TIME. NOW, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER IN CASE OF DIRECTI ONS OF SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ORDER WHICH WAS SUBJECT MAT TER OF APPEAL WOULD BE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 12 CONSIDERING THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE LIMITATION P ERIOD FOR REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE COUNTED. SUB-SECTION (2) REL AXES THE LIMITATION PERIOD AS PROVIDED U/S 149 TO BE COUNTED FROM THE E ND OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR TILL THE DATE OF THE ORDER WHICH WA S THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL INSTEAD OF THE DATE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. HENCE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIMITATION FOR R EASSESSMENT AS PRESCRIBED SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 150 THE LIMIT ATION PROVIDED U/S 149 HAS TO BE COUNTED FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR TILL THE DATE OF THE ORDER WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL WHER EIN THE DIRECTIONS WERE PASSED INSTEAD OF THE DATE OF THE NOTICE ISSUE D U/S 148. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSING THE DIRECTIONS IS THE RELEVANT DAT E FOR COMPUTING THE LIMITATION WHEREAS THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT SU B-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 150 IS APPLICABLE AND THERE IS NO RESTRICTI ONS AS FAR AS LIMITATION FOR REASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN P URSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT EVEN IF THE LIMITATION IS CONSIDERED ON THE DATE OF THE ORDER W HICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL THEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.200 5 IN CASE OF M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. IS THE RELEVANT ORDE R FOR COUNTING THE LIMITATION AND AS SUCH NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ON 30. 07.2010 IS WITHIN THE ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 13 PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PROVIDED U/S 149 (1)(B) R.W .S. 150(2) OF THE ACT. AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE LIM ITATION AS PER SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 150 HAS TO BE COUNTED AS ON THE DATE OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE INTEN T OF THE LEGISLATURE AS PER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 150 AS IT IS MEANT F OR PROVIDING A CHECH ON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AGAINST THE MISUSE OF PO WER FOR ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION AS PROVIDED U/S 150( 1) OF THE ACT. FOR EXAMPLE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF ASSESS ING THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE CORRECT ASSESSEE ASSESSED THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE WRONG ASSESSEE THEN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT PERMIT FOR MISUSE THE PROVISIONS OF LAW FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE SAID INCOME FOR UNLIMITED PERIOD. THEREFORE, TO PUT A CHECH ON THI S UNLIMITED POWER OF AO SUB-SECTION (2) IS INSERTED IN THE STATUTE WHIC H STIPULATES THE TIME LIMIT FOR SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT BY CONSID ERING THE HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION THAT IF AT THE TIME OF FRAMI NG THE ASSESSMENT AT THE WRONG HAND AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPELLATE OR RE VISIONAL AUTHORITY PASSED THE DIRECTION TO ASSESS IN THE RIGHT HAND TH EN THE LIMITATION FOR SUCH REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE WHEN SUCH ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN THE WRONG HAND IS PASSED INSTEAD OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE RIGHT HAND. IF THE AO WAS HAVING THE POWER AND JURISDICTION TO ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 14 ASSESS THE SAID INCOME IN THE RIGHT HAND INSTEAD OF WRONG HAND AS PER THE LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 149 THEN THE TIME TAKEN IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHORITY WHICH PASSED THE DIRECTIONS WILL NOT TAKE AWAY THE JURISDICTION AND POWER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS VERY MUCH AVAILABLE WITH THE AO ON THE DA TE WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE WRONG HAND. IN OTHER WOR DS IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE ASSESSED THE SAME INCO ME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF ASSESSING THE SAME IN WRONG HAND THEN THE LIMITATION FOR REASSESSMENT OF THE SAID INCOME IS S TILL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO IRRESPECTIVE OF THE TIME CONSUMED IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND DATE OF THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY THE APPELLATE OR R EVISIONAL AUTHORITY. IN NUT SHELL SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 150 EXCLUDES T HE TIME CONSUMED IN THE PROCEEDING BEFORE APPELLATE OR REVISIONAL AUTHO RITY WHEREIN SUCH DIRECTIONS ARE PASSED FROM THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBE D U/S 149 OF THE ACT. 6. AS REGARDS THE DATE OF ORDER ON WHICH THE LIMIT ATION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED WHETHER IT IS ASSESSMENT ORDER OR THE OR DER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN CASE THE DIRECTIONS ARE PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHET HER THE DIRECTIONS ARE PASSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR IN T HE SECOND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BY THIS TRIBUNAL AS THE TIME CONSUMED IN THE PROCEEDINGS ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 15 IN THE APPEAL CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY PARTY EIT HER THE AO OR THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIMITATION AS PER SUB-S ECTION (2) OF SECTION 150 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT TH E HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. VAIKUNDAM RUBBER CO. LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE HAS HELD IN PARA 4 TO 6 AS UNDER:- 4. THE TWO QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE AR E WHETHER THE REASSESSMENT WAS UNDER S. 147(A) OR S. 147(B) ? THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT TRIED TO ARGUE THAT IT COMES UNDER S . 147(A). ACCORDING TO THEM, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED A BOUT THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION. THIS IS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH COULD BE MADE USE OF FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO US, THIS SUBMISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS AN ADMITTED CASE THAT THE EARLIER VIEW WAS THAT AS PER THE JUDGMENT IN JAYARAM VS. CIT (SU PRA), INTEREST ON THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT IS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT IS RECEIVED. IT WAS ONLY BY A LATER DEC ISION IN PETER JOHN'S CASE (SUPRA) A FULL BENCH OF THIS COURT HELD THAT INTEREST IS LIABLE TO BE SPREAD OVER. HENCE, WE AGREE WITH THE TRIBUNAL THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE ALL MATERIALS BEFORE THE AO. IF THAT BE SO, THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE UNDER S. 147(A). THEN IT CAN BE ONLY UNDER S. 147(B). HERE, IT WAS BY VIRTUE OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 19TH FEB. , 1988, THAT INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO THAT INTEREST CA N BE SPREAD OVER. THERE WAS A CONTENTION AS TO ACTUALLY WHETHER THERE IS ANY SUCH DIRECTION OR FINDING IN THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER. ACCORDING TO US, WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HOLD THAT ONLY INTEREST THAT ACCR UED FOR THE YEAR 1980-81 CAN BE ASSESSED FOR THAT YEAR, IT BECO MES CLEAR THAT REST OF THE INTEREST IS SPREAD OVER TO VARIOUS YEAR S AND THIS GIVES A RIGHT TO THE AO UNDER S. 147(B) TO START PROCEEDI NGS FOR ESCAPED ASSESSMENT READ WITH S. 150(1) OF THE ACT. SEC. 150 (1) SAYS THAT, ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 16 NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN S. 149, THE N OTICE UNDER S. 148 MAY BE ISSUED AT ANY TIME FOR THE PURPOSE OF MA KING AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION IN CONS EQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTA INED IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AUTHORITY IN ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER TH IS ACT BY WAY OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION. THUS, THE LIMITAT ION UNDER S. 149 DOES NOT APPLY TO S. 150(1). BUT SUB-S. (2) OF S. 1 50 SAYS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-S. (1) SHALL NOT APPLY IN ANY CAS E WHERE ANY SUCH ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION AS I S REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB-SECTION RELATES TO AN ASSESSMENT YEA R IN RESPECT OF WHICH AN ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME THE ORDER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS MADE BY REASON OF ANY OTHER PROVISION LIMITING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ANY ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE COMPUTATION MAY BE TAKEN. THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE MEANING O F SUBJECT- MATTER OF APPEAL. WHILE THE DEPARTMENT CONTENDS THA T SUBJECT- MATTER OF APPEAL REFERS TO ORDER OR ASSESSMENT PASS ED FOR THE YEAR 1980-81, I.E., 27TH JAN., 1983; THE ASSESSEE W OULD CONTEND THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 27TH JAN., 1983, WA S SUBJECTED TO APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THAT APPEAL WAS DIS MISSED AND AGAINST THAT ORDER, AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL W AS FILED. IT IS THE TRIBUNAL WHICH PASSED THE ORDER ON 19TH FEB., 1 988. SO, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT IS THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) WHICH WAS SUBJECT-MATTER OF APPEAL, BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS RELEVANT. THAT DATE IS 1ST MARCH, 1984. 5. HERE, SO FAR AS THE ASST. YRS. 1975-76, 1976-77 AND 1977-78 IS CONCERNED, IT HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT E VEN IF THE DATE IS RECKONED FROM 27TH JAN., 1983, AS POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE, REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE HAD FOR THESE THREE YEARS VI Z., 1975-76 TO 1977-78. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE DEPARTMENT CAN RESCUE ONLY IF THE CONTENTION UNDER S. 147(A) IS ACCEPTED. SINC E THAT IS REJECTED, WE AGREE WITH THE TRIBUNAL AND HOLD THAT REASSESSMENT FOR THE YEARS 1975-76, 1976-77 AND 1977-78 IS BARRE D. SO, THE ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 17 NEXT TWO YEARS ARE 1978-79 AND 1979-80. THE DEPARTM ENT HAS FOUND THAT SO FAR AS THESE TWO YEARS ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS NO BAR OF LIMITATION IF THE DATE IS TAKEN FROM 27TH JA N., 1983. BUT, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT IF 1ST MARCH, 1984, IS T AKEN, THE REASSESSMENT, FOR 1978-79 AND 1979-80 WOULD HAVE BE EN BARRED. SO, THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED IS THE MEANING OF THE WORDS, 'AT THE TIME THE ORDER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION'. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE WOULD RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COU RT IN CIT VS. G. VISWANATHAM (1988) 73 CTR (AP) 123 : (1988) 172 ITR 401 (AP) : TC 51R.2015. EVEN THOUGH IN THAT CASE, THE C OURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS : 'THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SECOND APPEAL IS D T. 9TH SEPT., 1974. ACCORDING TO SUB-S. (2) OF S. 150, THE INITIA TION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE BAD, EVEN WHEN TH EY ARE INITIATED IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO AN Y FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, IF SUCH INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS BARRED BY ANY OTHER PRO VISION OF THE ACT ON THE DATE OF THE ORDER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF APPEAL. IN THIS CASE, THE SECOND APPEAL IN WHICH TH E FINDING WAS RECORDED AROSE FROM THE ORDER OF THE AAC DT. 6TH OC T., 1972. THE QUESTION IS, WHETHER ON THAT DATE THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS BARRED BY ANY PROVISION OF LAW ? ACC ORDING TO S. 149(1)(B) REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE INITIA TED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR. FOUR YEARS THEREFROM WOULD EXPIRE ON 31ST MAR CH,1971. THUS, THE IMPUGNED INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 147 BY A NOTICE ISSUED ON A DATE SUBSEQUENT TO 9TH SEPT., 19 74, WOULD BE CLEARLY BARRED.' BUT IN THAT CASE, THE COURT FOUND THAT EVEN IF THE DATE IS CONSTRUED AS REFERRING TO THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASS ESSMENT, THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE BARRED. ANOTHER DECISION RELIED ON BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ITO VS. EASTERN COAL CO. LTD. (1975) 101 ITR ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 18 477 (CAL) : TC 51R.947. IN THAT CASE, THERE IS NO DISCU SSION REGARDING THIS ASPECT. BUT, IT IS ASSUMED THERE THA T, DATE MENTIONED IS THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER. ACCORD ING TO US, THE WORDS 'AT THE TIME THE ORDER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS MADE.......' IN S. 150(2) ARE SIGNIFICANT. IT IS BE CAUSE OF THE WORD 'APPEAL' THAT, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE SUBJECT-MAT TER SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS THE ORIGINAL ORDER. THERE ARE TWO TIER S OF APPEALS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; ONE TO THE CIT(A) AND AN OTHER TO THE TRIBUNAL. BUT, THE NEXT WORD IS REFERENCE. REFERENC E IS MADE UNDER S. 256(1) OF THE ACT. WHAT IS REFERRED IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. CAN WE SAY THAT WHEN THE TRIBUNAL REFERS THE MATTER TO THE HIGH COURT, THE ORDER THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS THE ORDER OF THE AO?. NO. IT IS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT IS BEING REFERRED. FOR E XAMPLE, IN THIS CASE, WHERE THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT WILL BE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL THAT WILL BE MATERIAL. FURTHER ACCORDING TO US, WHEN AN ORDER IS PASSED BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY AND AN APPEAL IS FILED, THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHORITY MERGES WITH THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WHEN A SECOND APPEAL IS FILED, THE SUBJE CT-MATTER IS THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. SO ALSO, WHEN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CHALLENGED, WHAT IS THE SUBJECT-MAT TER, IS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IF THAT BE SO, THERE IS NO D IFFICULTY IN CONSTRUING S. 150(2). THEN, IN THIS CASE, THE ORDER WHICH WAS SUBJECT-MATTER OF APPEAL IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), ON 1ST MARCH, 1984. IF SO, THE REASS ESSMENT FOR 1978-79 WILL ALSO BE BARRED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE FOR THE YEARS 1975-76 TO 1977-78 ARE ANSWER ED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED AT THE IN STANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ANSWER THE QUESTION IN THE NEGATIVE, I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 19 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT WHEN T HE DIRECTIONS WERE PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL THEN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE , THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 150(2 ) OF THE ACT AND NOT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SINCE, NO CONTRARY DECISION H AS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE ON THIS POINT, THEREFORE, WE ARE BOUND T O FOLLOW THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. VAI KUNDAM RUBBER CO. LTD. (SUPRA) AND ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE LIMITATI ON FOR REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE DATE WHEN THE LD. CIT ( A) PASSED THE ORDER IN CASE OF M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL PASSED THE DIRECTIONS ON 26.03.2010. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN CASE OF M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. PASSED THE OR DER ON 15.07.2009 AND ON THAT DATE THE LIMITATION FOR REASSESSMENT FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 & 2002-03 ALREADY EXPIRED AS 6 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS EXPIRED ON 31.03.2008 AND 31.03.2009 RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, THE LIMITATION AS ON THE D ATE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 15.07.2009 WAS NOT A VAILABLE FOR REASSESSMENT OF THIS INCOME FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMEN T YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAR RED BY LIMITATION AS ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013 SH. RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF VS. ITO 20 PROVIDED U/S 149 R.W.S. 150(2) OF THE ACT. SINCE T HE REOPENING IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENT REA SSESSED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME ARE QUASHED. WHEN THE REAS SESSMENTS ITSELF ARE QUASH BEING VOID AND BARRED BY LIMITATION THEN THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIO N BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO GO INT O THE SAID GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/12/2017 SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 08/12/2017. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF, M/S M/S TIRUPATI AUTOMOBILES, VILLAGE- SANTERA, NH-08, KOTP UTLI, JAIAPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD BEHROR, BEHROR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 1024 &1025/JP/2013} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR