Gian Chand, Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3332/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8219 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2010
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN; VED JAIN MS RANO JIAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 153A; 142(2A)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 1/12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, BENCH C BEFORE SHRI K. G. BANSAL, ACCOUTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3332, 3333, 3334 /DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2004-05 RESPE CTIVELY) SHRI GIAN CHAND, VS. DCIT, CC-10, 25/75, SHAKTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI DELHI I.T.A. NOS.3585, 3586 & 3587/DEL/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2004-05 RESPE CTIVELY) DCIT, CC-10, VS. SHRI GIAN CHAND, NEW DELHI 25/75, SHAKTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) PAN / GIR NO. AELPD6730M APPELLANT BY: SHRI VED JAIN, MS. RANO JIAN AND SHRI V MOHAN ,CA RESPONDENT BY: MS. MONA MOHANTY, SR. DR ORDER PER BENCH: 1. I.T.A. NO. 3332/DEL/2008 IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASS ESSEE AND I.T.A. NO. 3585/DEL/2008 IS THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, NEW DEL HI IN APPEAL NO. DEL/CIT(A)-II/2007-08/76/229 DATED 04.09.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, I.T.A . I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 2/12 NO. 3333/DEL/2008 IS THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND I.T.A. NO. 3586/DEL/2008 IS THE APPEAL BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, NEW DELHI IN AP PEAL NO. DEL/CIT(A)-II/2007-08/77/230 DATED 04.09.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND I.T.A. NO. 3334/DEL./2008 IS THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND I. T.A. NO. 3587/DEL/2008 IS THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)II/2007-08/78/231 DATED 04.09.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SHRI V ED JAIN, MS. RANO JAIN, SHRI V MOHAN, C.AS. REPRESENTE D FOR THE ASSESSEE AND MS. MONA MOHANTY SR. DR REPRESENTED FOR THE REVENUE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO. 2 WHICH WAS AGAINST TH E ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A. O. WAS BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER T HE ACT AND WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED GOES TO THE ROOT O F THE APPEAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS A SEA RCH ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 07.10.2004 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE LAST DATE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A WAS TO BE COMPLETED WAS ON 31.12.2006. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESS MENT ON 12.12.2006 THE A.O. HAD ISSUED DIRECTION FOR A SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION T HAT I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 3/12 THE TIME GIVEN FOR FILING THE AUDIT REPORT WAS 90 D AYS I.E. UP TO 12.03.2007. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION TH AT THE A.O. HAD EXTENDED THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE SPE CIAL AUDIT REPORT SUO MOTO ON 3 OCCASIONS FORM 12.03.200 7 TO 20.04.2007 VIDE LETTER DATED 07.03.2007, FROM 20.04.2007 TO 20.05.2007 VIDE LETTER DATED 17.04.20 07 AND AGAIN FROM 20.05.2007 TO 05.06.2007 VIDE LETTER DATED 17.05.2007. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE A .O. WAS NOT VESTED WITH THE POWERS TO EXTEND THE TIME PERIOD SUO MOTO BEFORE THE AMENDMENT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD BEEN PAS SED ON 03.08.2007 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY BOTH THE SI DES THAT THE ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS WAS COVERED BY THE DECIS ION OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF BISHAN SWAROOP RAM IN I.T.A. NOS.3413, 3414, 3459, 3415, 3416, 3068, 3670/DEL/2008 AND 77,78,76,359/DEL/2009, 3588, 3589 & 3039/DEL/2008 DATED 18.09.2009 WHEREIN IT HAS BEE N HELD AS FOLLOWS: WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FROM THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE SIDES, THE QUESTIONS THAT COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION ARE: (I) DOES THE A.O. HAVE THE POWERS TO GRANT ANY SPECIFIED TIME AS THE DIRECTION OF THE A.O. FOR COMPLETING SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A), AND I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 4/12 (II) WHETHER THE TIME PERIOD U/S 142(2A) IS CONTROLLED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2C)? FOR A BETTER APPRECIATION OF THE ISSUE, IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS AS UNDER: THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2A) IS AS FOLLOWS: (2A) IF, AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, IS OF TH E OPINION THAT IT IS NECESSARY SO TO DO, HE MAY, WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED BY AN ACCOUNTANT, AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 288, NOMINATED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER 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 MAY REQUIRE: PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NOT DIREC T THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE ACCOUNTS SO AUDITED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2C) READ AS FOLLOWS: (2C) EVERY REPORT UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER: I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 5/12 PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, SUO MOTU, OR ON AN APPLICATION MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR ANY GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON, EXTEND THE SAID PERIOD BY SUCH FURTHER PERIOD OR PERIODS AS HE THINKS FIT; SO, HOWEVER, THAT THE AGGREGATE OF THE PERIOD ORIGINALLY FIXED AND THE PERIOD OR PERIODS SO EXTENDED SHALL NOT, IN ANY CASE, EXCEED ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE DIRECTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION (II) TO SECTION 153B READ AS FOLLOWS: EXPLANATION.IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION,-- (I) X X X X X X X X X. (II) THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE DAY ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTS THE ASSESSEE TO HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) OF SECTION 142 AND ENDING ON THE DAY ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT UNDER TH AT SUB-SECTION; OR (III) X X X X X X X X X SHALL BE EXCLUDED: THE PROVISO TO EXP.(II) OF SECTION 153B READS AS FOLLOWS: PROVIDED THAT WHERE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EXCLUSION OF THE AFORESAID PERIOD, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OF THIS SUB-SECTION AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 6/12 FOR MAKING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS LESS THAN SIXTY DAYS, SUCH REMAINING PERIOD SHALL BE EXTENDED TO SIXTY DAYS AND THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY. A PERUSAL OF THE MEMORANDUM EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE BILL 2008 REGARDING THE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 142(2C) READS AS FOLLOWS: GRANTING OF POWER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SUB-SECTION OF SECTION 142. SUB-SECTION (2A) TO (2D) OF SECTION 142 DEAL WITH THE POWER OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ORDER A SPECIAL AUDIT. SUCH POWER IS REQUIRED TO BE EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. SUB-SECTION (2L) OF THE SAID SECTION SPECIFIES THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE AUDIT REPORT IS TO BE FURNISHED. THE PROVISO TO SAID SUB-SECTION EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXTEND THIS PERIOD OF FURNISHING OF AUDIT REPORT. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE AGGREGATE OF THE ORIGINALLY FIXED PERIOD AND THE PERIOD(S) SO EXTENDED SHALL NO T EXCEED 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION OF SPECIAL AUDIT. FURTHER, SUCH EXTENSIO N CAN BE MADE ONLY WHEN AN APPLICATION IS MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE ARE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON FOR SUCH EXTENSION. I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 7/12 IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE SAID PROVISO SO AS TO ALSO ALLOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXTEND THIS PERIOD OF FURNISHING OF AUDIT REPORT SUO MOTU. HENCE, WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONTINUE T O HAVE POWER TO GRANT EXTENSION ON AN APPLICATION MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN THERE ARE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR SUCH EXTENSION, HE CAN ALSO GRANT SUCH EXTENSION ON HIS OWN. THE AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM IST APRIL, 2008 . {CAUSE 28}. CIRCULAR NO.1 DATED 27.03.2009 PARA 27 TO 27.4 READS AS FOLLOWS: DIRECT TAX CIRCULAR NO. 1DATED 27 MARCH, 2009. EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINANCE ACT, 2008. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AS PASSED BY THE PARLIAMENT, RECEIVED THE ASSENT OF THE PRESIDENT ON THE 10 TH DAY OF MAY, 2008 AND HAS BEEN ENACTED AS ACT NO. 18 OF 2008. THIS CIRCULAR EXPLAINS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT RELATING TO DIRECT TAXES. 27. GRANTING OF POWER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) OF SECTION 142. 27.1 SUB-SECTION (2A) TO (2D) OF SECTION 142DEAL WITH THE POWER OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ORDER A SPECIAL AUDIT. SUCH POWER IS REQUIRED TO B E EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING REGARD TO I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 8/12 THE NATURE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 27.2 SUB-SECTION (2C) OF THE SAID SECTION SPECIFIED THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE AUDIT REPORT IS TO BE FURNISHED. THE PROVISION TO SAID SUB-SECTION EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXTEND THIS PERIOD OF FURNISHING OF AUDIT REPORT. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO PROVIDED THAT THE AGGREGATE OF THE ORIGINALLY FIXED PERIOD AND THE PERIOD(S) SO EXTENDED SHALL NO T EXCEED 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION OF SPECIAL AUDIT. FURTHER, SUCH EXTENSIO N CAN BE MADE ONLY WHEN AN APPLICATION IS MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE ARE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR SUCH EXTENSION. 27.3 WITH A VIEW TO RATIONALIZE THE SAID PROVISO SO AS TO ALSO ALLOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O EXTEND THIS PERIOD OF FURNISHING OF AUDIT REPORT SU O MOTU, THE SAID PROVISO HAS BEEN AMENDED. HENCE, WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONTINUE TO HAVE POWER TO GRANT EXTENSION ON AN APPLICATION MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE ARE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR SUCH EXTENSION, HE CAN ALSO GRANT SUCH EXTENSION ON HIS OWN. 27.4 APPLICABILITY HAS BEEN MADE APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM IST APRIL, 2008. HENCE, FROM THIS DATE AND ONWARDS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO POWER TO EXTEND THE PERIOD OF FURNISHING OF AUDIT REPORT SUO MOTU. THE DATES AS MENTIONED ARE NOT DISPUTED. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2A) SHOWS THAT AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE A.O. IF THE A.O. IS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS COMPLEXITY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, HE MAY WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE CHIE F COMMISSION OR THE COMMISSIONER, DIRECT THAT THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS ARE TO BE AUDITED BY AN I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 9/12 ACCOUNTANT AS SPECIFIED UNDER THE ACT. THE DIRECTI ON FOR CONDUCTING SPECIAL AUDIT IS SUBJECT TO THE ASSE SSEE HAVING BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2A) CATEGORICALLY SHOWS THAT NO TIME LIMIT IS SPECIFIED FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL AUDIT. A READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2C) SHOWS THAT THE REPORT U/S 142(2A) IS TO BE FURNISHED WITH IN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, WHICH IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE A.O. THUS, IT IS NOTICED THAT SECTION 142(2C) SPECIFIES THE TIME LIMIT AND SUCH TIME LIMIT IS GIV EN AT THE DISCRETION OF THE A.O. THIS DISCRETION OF THE A.O. IN GRANTING THE TIME LIMIT IS CONTROLLED BY THE PRO VISO TO SECTION 142(2C). THE PROVISION SPECIFIES THAT T HE A.O. CAN GIVE ANY PERIOD IN HIS DISCRETION SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM OF 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE DIRECTION U/S 142(2A) IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS BECAUSE THE OPENING WORDS OF SECTION 142(2C) SPECIFY THAT IT APPLIES TO EVERY REPORT UND ER SUB-SECTION (2A). A PERUSAL OF THE CIRCULAR NO.01 DATED 27.03.2009 AS ALSO THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING TO THE PROVISIONS IN THE FINANCE BILL, 2008, CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LEGISLATURE AS ALSO TH E CBDT CATEGORICALLY WERE OF THE VIEW THAT SUB- SECTION (2A) (2B), (2C) AND (2D) OF SECTION 142 DEA L WITH THE POWERS OF THE A.O. TO ORDER A SPECIAL AUDI T FIX THE TIME LIMIT WITH OVERALL PERIOD OF 180 DAYS ETC. AND THESE PROVISIONS TO BE READ TOGETHER AS COMPLET E CODE IN THESE MATTERS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2 A) HAD A STAND-ALONE POSITION AND WAS UNFETTERED BY SECTION 142(2C). FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 142(2C ) SHOWS THAT THE A.O. DID HAVE THE POWERS TO EXTEND THE PERIOD BY FURTHER PERIOD OR PERIODS AS HE THINK S FIT SUBJECT TO THE MAXIMUM LIMITATION OF A PERIOD OF 18 0 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE DIRECTION U/S I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 10/12 142(2A) WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT MADE ANY APPLICATION FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD OF SPECIAL AUDIT. THEREFORE EXTENSION WHICH HAS BEEN DONE VIDE LETTER DATED 07.03.2007, 17.04.2007 AND 17.05.2007 MADE ON THE REQUEST OF THE AUDITOR COULD DULY BE TAKEN AS THE SUO MOTU ACTION OF THE A.O. A PERUSAL OF THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS OF FINANCE BILL 2008 AS A LSO THE CIRCULAR NO.01 DATED 27.03.2008 WHICH EXPLAINS THE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISO TO SECTION 142(2C) SHOWS THAT THE TERM SUO MOTU, OR HAD BEEN INSERTE D W.E.F. 01.04.2008. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOUL D HAVE TO BE HELD THAT THE POWER TO SUO MOTU EXTEND T HE PERIOD FOR COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL AUDIT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE A.O. ONLY W.E.F. 01.04.2008 AND BEFORE SUCH DATE, THE EXTENSION CAN BE MADE ONLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE ON AN APPLICATION MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE. IF IT IS TO BE READ OTHERWISE, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR SUCH AMENDMENT. THE FACT THAT THE TERM SUO MOTO HAS BEEN INSERTED WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2008 SHOWS THAT BEFORE 01.04.2008, THE A.O. DID NOT HAVE THE INHERENT POWERS TO EXTEND THE TIME LIMIT WITHOUT AN APPLICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, EVEN SUCH EXTENSION WOULD BE CONTROLLED IN VIEW OF THE TERM FOR ANY GOOD & SUFFICIENT REASON. HERE AS THE PERIOD IN THE PRESENT CASE IS BEFORE 01.04.2008 AND AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY APPLICATION FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD GIVEN V IDE ORDER FOR SPECIAL ORDER DATED 12.12.2006, THE EXTENSIONS MADE BY THE A.O. VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 07.03.2007, 17.04.2007 AND 17.05.2007 ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTLY SUCH EXTENSIONS AS MADE VIDE THOSE LETTERS / ORDERS CANNOT BE SAID TO EXTEND THE LIMITATION. THE EXCLUSION AS PROVIDED I N THE EXP. (II) TO SECTION 153B WOULD HAVE TO BE READ I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 11/12 TO BE 90 DAYS BEING A PERIOD BETWEEN 12.12.2006 TO 12.03.2007. CONSEQUENTLY, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE HELD THAT THE TIME PERIOD U/S 142(2A) IS CONTROLLED BY T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(2C) AND THE EXCLUSION PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION (II) TO SECTION 158B WAS FO R THE PERIOD FORM 12.12.2006 TO 12.03.2007 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, WOULD HAVE TO B E UPHELD AND WE DO SO. AS THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN GROUND NO.2(III) O F ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW O F OUR FINDING AS ABOVE, THE SAID GROUND IS HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OTHER GROUNDS AS RAISED IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE DO NOT REQUIRE OUR CONSIDERATION AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED UPON. 3. IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT EVEN THE DATES IN THE ASSESSEES CASE WERE IDENTICAL TO THE DATES IN THE CASE OF BISHAN SWAROOM RAM REFERRED TO SUPRA. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF BISHAN SWAROOM RAM WHEREIN BOTH OF US ARE PARTIES. IT IS NOTICED THAT ON IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THIS BENCH HAS HELD THAT TH E A.O. DOES NOT HAVE THE POWERS TO SUO MOTO EXTEND TH E TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETING THE SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142 (2A) OF THE ACT WITHOUT AN APPLICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE . AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL. FOLLO WING THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH IN THE CASE OF BISHAN SWAROO M RAM REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF THE I.T.A. NO. 3332-34,3585-87/DEL/2008 12/12 ASSESSEE FOR THE ABOVE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN TH E SAID APPEALS ARE HELD TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION. 5. AS THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE BARRED B Y LIMITATION, THE OTHER GROUNDS AS RAISED IN THESE AP PEALS BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT REQUIRE OUR CONSIDERATION AN D CONSEQUENTLY THEY ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED UPON. 6. AS THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN HELD BARRED BY LIMI TATION, THE ISSUES AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEALS ALSO DO NOT SURVIVE FOR CONSIDERATION AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME ARE NOT BEING ADJUDICATED UPON AND CONSEQUENTL Y ARE TREATED AS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 05 TH FEB., 2010. SD./- SD./- (K. G. BANSAL) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:05 TH FEB., 2010 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT TRUE COPY: BY ORDER 4. CIT(A) 5. DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI