Tatineni Meher Sitaram Rep. By Devatha Sri Rama Murthy, , Rajahmundry V. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Kakinada

ITA 154/VIZ/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1610 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment; Fair market value; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / I . T .A.NO. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 08 - 09 ) TATINENI MEHER PRASAD RE PRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF DEVATHA SRI RAMA MURTHY REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF DEVATHA NAGESH MOHAN 80 - 17 - 18/1, J.N.ROAD RAJAHMUNDRY [PAN : A BYPT7839G] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) KAKINADA T ATINENI MEHER SITARAM REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF DEVATHA SRI RAMA MURTHY REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF DEVATHA NAGESH MONHAN 80 - 17 - 18/1, J.N.ROAD RAJAHMUNDRY [PAN : A BYPT7838G] ( / APPELLANT S ) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT S BY : SHRI G.V.N.HARI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.S.MURTHY, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 27 . 08. 2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 .0 9 .2018 2 I.T.A NOS. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE S E APPEAL S ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [( APPEALS )] [CIT(A)] - 1 0 , HYDERABAD DATED 12 .0 2 .201 8 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08 - 09. 2. IN THIS CASE, SRI TATINENI MEHER PRASAD ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER SRI TAT INENI MEHER SITARAM PURCHASED THE IMM OVABLE PROPERTY OF AN OPEN PLOT ADMEASURING 289.05 SQ.YDS AT D.NO.7 - 30 - 14 & 7 - 30 - 15, MAIN ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY FROM TWO NON - RESIDENTS NAMELY SRI DEVATHA SRIRAM MURTHY AND SRI DEVATHA NAGESH MOHAN AND TWO OTHER RESIDENTS NAMELY SRI DEVATHA SAI PRASAD AND SRI DEVATHA SUDHAKAR. THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS REGISTERED ON 11.02.2008 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.709/2008 WITH SRO, RAJAHMUNDRY. THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.46,00,000/ - , WHEREAS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER SRO WAS RS.58,03,000/ - . THE NON - RESIDENTS HAVE NOT FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 DISCLOSING THE SHARE OF THEIR CAPITAL GAINS, AS PER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS ACT). THE CONSIDERATION 3 I.T.A NOS. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ACQU IRING THE PROPERT Y AND THE SHARES OF THE CO - OWNERS ARE AS UNDER : SL. NO. NAME OF THE SELLER CONSIDERATION PAID BY SRI TATINENI MEHER PRASAD (RESIDENT) CONSIDERATION PAID BY SRI TATINENI MEHER SITARAM (RESIDENT) TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY EACH SELLER PROPORTIONATE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.50 C 1 SRI DEVATHA SRI RAMA MURTHY ( NON - RESIDENT) RS.7,66,667 RS.7,66,667 RS.15,33,334 RS.19,34,334 2. SRI DEVATHA NAGESH MOHAN (NON - RESIDENT) RS.7,66,667 RS.7,66,667 RS.15,13,334 RS.19,34,334 3. SRI DEVATHA SAI PRASAD, RAJAHMUNDRY RS.3,83,333 R S.3,83,333 RS.7,66,666 RS.9,67,166 4. SRI DEVATHA SUDHAKAR, RAJAHMUNDRY RS.3,83,333 RS.3,83,333 RS.7,66,666 RS.9,67,166 TOTAL RS.23,00,000 RS.23,00,000 RS.46,00,000 RS.58,03,000 2.1. SINCE THE NON - RESIDENTS HAVE RECEIVED THE SALE CONSIDERATION FROM TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM AND HAVE NOT FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) TREATED BOTH THE VENDEES AS REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEES OF THE NRIS U/S 163 (1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE SHARE OF THEIR PROPERTY AND RESULTANT CAPITAL GAINS AND A CCORDINGLY ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 ON BOTH THE PURCHASERS AND ASSESSED THE INCOME AND RAISED THE DEMAND . 4 I.T.A NOS. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY 2.2. THE AO HAD ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 ON 25.03.2015 TO THE REP RESENTATIVE ASSESSEES DIRECTING TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 RASING THE DEMAND . 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A ) AND THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE NON - RESIDENTS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2008 - 09. THE LD. A R SUBMITTED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 148 EXTENDING THE TIME LIMIT OF SIX YEARS FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 CAME INTO FORCE W.E.F. 01.04 .2012 BY FINANCE ACT, 2012, TH U S , ARGUED T HAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF V.PRATIMA RAO AND OTHERS IN ITA NO.69 TO 74/VIZ/2018 DATED 06.06.2018 AND ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS BAD 5 I.T.A NOS. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY IN LAW AND REQUESTED TO QUASH THE NOTICE AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED AND ARGUED THAT THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 149(3) HAS COME INTO FORCE W.E.F. 01.04 . 2012 AND THE ITAT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.246/HYD/2015 DATED 15.07.2015 AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SS GADGIL REPORTED IN 53 ITR 231 .THE ITAT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF V.PRATIMA RAO AND OTHERS HAS NO T APPLIED THE LAW CORRECTLY AND THERE WAS A CONTRADICTION IN THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT HYDERABAD AND THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. ON ONE HAND, THE ITAT REPRODUC ED THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 149(3), ACCORDING TO WHICH T HE AMENDED PROVISIONS SHALL BE APPLICABLE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON OR BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL 2012, AND IN SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPH THEY OBSERVED THAT THE AMENDED PERIOD OF SIX YEARS IS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 ONWARDS AS PER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 149(3). LD.DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S S GADGIL, WAS REPRODUCED IN PAGE 14 OF THE ITATS ORDER IN THE 6 I.T.A NOS. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY CASE OF V.PRATIMA RAO, WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMENDED PROVISIONS WERE NOT GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND HENCE WOULD NOT GIVE LIFE TO THE DEAD PROCEEDINGS. BUT, WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 149(3), RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT WAS GIVEN BY MAKING THE EXTENDED TIME LIMIT APPLICABLE TO A.Y.2012 - 13 AND EARLIER YEARS. HENCE, ARGUED TO UPHOLD THE ASSESSMENT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE NON - RESIDENTS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 - 07 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT INVOLVED IN THIS YEAR IS 2008 - 09 AND AS PER SECTION 149(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 , T HE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE CASE OF REPRES ENTATIVE ASSESSEE U/S 163 IS TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE EXPIRE D BY THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . ONCE THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE HAS BEEN EXPIRED THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE TREATED AS THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT, THUS THE AMENDMENT WHICH HAS COME INTO FORCE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE UNLESS THE AMENDME NT WAS MADE 7 I.T.A NOS. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY. BEFORE THE AMENDMENT HAS COME INTO FORCE, THE ASSESSMENT IN THESE CASE S BEC A ME UNABATED ASSESSMENT . THE AMENDMENT CANNOT GIVE NEW LIFE TO THE DEAD ASSESSMENT. THE AMENDMENT HAS COME INTO FORCE W.E.F. 01.04 .2012 AND THE SAME WAS NOT MADE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THEREFORE, THE AMENDMENT MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH W AS ALREADY BARRED BY THE DATE AND THE ISSUE STANDS CLOSED. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE I DENTICAL TO THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF V.PRATIMA RAO AND OTHERS SUPRA . FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT PARA NO.7.1 TO 7.2. WHICH READS AS UNDER : 7.1. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED WAS 2007 - 08 AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE CASE OF AGENT OF NON - RESIDENT WAS TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH WAS EXPIRED ON 31.03.2010. AS ARGUED BY THE LD.AR THE IS SUE WAS DEAD AS ON 31.03.2010. THE AMENDMENT HAS COME INTO FORCE W.E.F. 1.7.2012 AND THE AMENDMENT WAS ALSO NOT RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. THE AMENDMENT MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME LIMIT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH WAS ALR EADY TIME BARRED BY THAT DATE AND THE ISSUE STANDS DEAD. THE ISSUE WHICH WAS ALREADY DEAD CANNOT BE REVIVED WITH A SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT UNLESS THE SAME AMENDMENT IS MADE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT COORDIN ATE BENCH OF HYDERABAD, RELIED UPON BY THE LD.AR AND THE ITAT EXPRESSED SIMILAR VIEW AND HELD THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. FOR SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERA BAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF MADHUCON SINO HYDRO JV VS. DCIT (SUPRA). 13. WE ALSO NOTICE FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, ONE MORE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THIS CASE, WHICH IS NOT EVEN POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT, IS BARRED BY LIMITATI ON PRESCRIBED UNDER PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (3) OF SEC. 149 OF THE ACT. 8 I.T.A NOS. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 149 OF THE ACT AS THEY STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME READ AS FOLLOWS: - '(3) IF THE PERSON ON WHOM A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS TO BE SERVED IS A PERSON TREATED AS THE AGENT OF A NON - RESIDENT UNDER SECTION 163 AND THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE - COMPUTATION TO BE MADE IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTICE IS TO BE MADE ON HIM AS THE AGENT OF SUCH NON - RESIDENT, THE NOTICE SHALL NOT BE ISSUED A FTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF *[SIX] YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. [EXPLANATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY CLARIFIED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (1) AND (3), AS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, SHALL ALSO BE APPLICABLE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON OR BEFORE THE J DAY OF APRIL, 2022.]' *SUBSTITUTED FOR 'TWO' BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, W.E.F 1 - 7 - 2012. THUS, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 149 MANDATES THAT WHERE THE INCOME ESCAPING THE ASSESSMENT BELONGS TO A NON - RESIDENT, AND THE REASSESSMENT IS TO BE MADE ON AGENT OF NON - RESIDENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 163 OF THE ACT, T HE NOTICE U/S.148 SHOULD BE ISSUED ONLY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UP TO 30.06.2012 OR WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX TEARS SUBSEQUENT TO 3006.2012. IN THIS CASE, THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006 - 07. REASSESSMEN T NOTICE WAS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED ON OR BEFORE 31.3.2008. WHEREAS, IN THE CASE ON HAND THE REASSESSMENT NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 30.03.2013, WHICH IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB - SECTION (3) OF SECTION 149 OF THE ACT. THE AMEND ED PERIOD OF SIX YEARS IS APPLICABLE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 ONWARDS AS PER THE EXPLANATION TO THE ABOVE SUB - SECTION. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CLAGGETT BRONCHI CO. LTD. V. CIT [19891 177 ITR 409 (PARA 9) HAD HELD AS UNDER: - ..THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT TO THE AGENT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS PROHIBITION BY THE STATUTE. THE SAME RATIO WAS FOLLOWED IN THE FOLLOWING TWO CASES 9 I.T.A NOS. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY (I) CIT V. S.G. SAMBANDAM& CO., ( 2000) 242 ITR 708, 718 (MAD); (II) INGRAM MICRO INDIA LTD. V. DEPUTY CIT (2012) 347 ITR 221 (BORN).' 14. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASES, WE HOLD THAT THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THIS EASE ARE ALSO BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THEREFORE VOID AB INITIO. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.S.GADGIL VS. LAL&COMPANY (SUPRA)HELD THAT LIMITATION HAVING EXPIRED UNDER THE OLD PROVISION BEFORE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE AMENDING LAW AND THE AMENDING LAW HAVING NOT BEEN MADE RETROSPECTIVE, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 34 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN PA RA NO.9 OF THE ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : 9. AS WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE RIGHT TO COMMENCE A PROCEEDING FOR ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS AN AGENT OF A NON - RESIDENT PARTY UNDER THE IT ACT BEFORE IT W A S AMENDED, ENDED ON 31ST MARCH, 1956. IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER THE AMENDING ACT BY 5. 18 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1956, AUTHORITY WAS CONFERRED UPON THE ITO TO ASSESS A PERSON AS AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN PARTY UNDER S. 43 WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT. BUT AUTHORITY OF THE ITO UNDER THE ACT BEFORE IT WAS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 1956, HAVING ALREADY COME TO AN END, THE AMENDING PROVISION WILL NOT ASSIST HIM TO COMMENCE A PROCEEDING EVEN THOUGH AT THE DATE WHEN HE ISSUED THE NOTICE IT IS WITHIN THE PERIOD PROVIDED BY THAT AMENDING ACT, THIS WILL BE SO, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO DETERMINABLE POINT OF TIME BETWEEN THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME PROVIDED UNDER THE OLD ACT AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE AMENDING ACT. THE LEGISLATURE HAS GIVEN TO S. 18 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1956, ONLY A LIMITED RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION, .E,, UP TO 1ST APRIL, 1956, ONLY. THAT PROVISION MUST BE READ SUBJECT TO THE RULE THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION OR CLEAR IMPLICATION, THE LEGISLATURE DOES N OT INTEND TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE AMENDING PROVISION GREATER RETROSPECTIVITY THAN IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED, NOR TO AUTHORISE THE ITO TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS WHICH BEFORE THE NEW ACT CAME INTO FORCE HAD BY THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PROVIDED BECOME BARRED. 7.2. HO NBLE AP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADDL.CIT VS. WATAN MECHANICAL AND TURNING WORKS (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER : IT IS WELL - SETTLED THAT THE IT ACT AS IT STANDS AMENDED ON THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL OF ANY FINANCIAL YEAR, MUST APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THAT YEAR. ANY AMENDMENTS IN THE ACT WHICH COME INTO FORCE AFTER THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL OF FINANCIAL YEAR, WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THAT YEAR, EVEN IF THE ASSESSMENT IS ACTUALLY MADE AFTER THE AMENDMENTS COME INTO FORCE.' 10 I.T.A NOS. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2007 - 08 AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31.10.2010. THE AMENDMENT TO SUB SECTION 149(3) HAS COME INTO FORCE FROM 01.04.2012 I.E. AFTER EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE AMENDMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE FOR ENLARGEMENT OF THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT HYDERABAD CITED (SUPRA) AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.S.GADGIL (SUPRA). THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, HYDERABAD, WE HOLD THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE AO IN THIS CASE IS ALSO BARRED BY LIMITATION. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS SQUASHED AND THE CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS MADE ARE HELD TO BE VOID AB INITIO. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE CONSIDERED NOT NECESSARY TO BE A DJUDICATED. 5.1. THE ITAT, HYDERABAD HAS CLEARLY ANALYZED THE ISSUE AND RIGHTLY TAKEN THE SUPPORT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURTS DECISION . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT INVOLVED IS 2008 - 09 AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 I.E. 2 YEARS HAS EXPIRED IN 2010 - 11 BEFORE THE AMENDMENT CAME INTO FORCE. SINCE THE TIME LIMIT HAS ALREADY EXPIRED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 , WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS QUASHED AND THE CO NSEQUENT ASSESSMENT IS ANNULLED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 11 I.T.A NOS. 153 - 156 /VIZ/201 8 TATINENI MEHER PRASAD AND TATINENI MEHER SITARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER , 201 8 . S D/ - S D/ - ( . ) ( . . ) ( V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 05 .0 9 .2018 L.RAMA, SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . / THE ASSESSEE - M/S TATINENI MEHER PRASAD , RE PRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF DEVATHA SRI RAMA MURTHY, REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF DEVATHA NAGESH MOHAN, 80 - 17 - 18/1, J.N.ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY 2 . / THE REVENUE T ATINENI MEHER SITARAM, REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF DEVATHA SRI RAMA MURTHY, REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE OF DEVATHA NAGESH MONHAN, 80 - 17 - 18/1, J.N.ROAD, RAJAHMUNDRY 3 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( IT &TP ) , HYDERABAD 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) - 10 , HYDERABAD 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM