Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6384 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 11 month(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
18-01-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
05-11-2018
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
17-02-2014
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.97 TO 99(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007-08 TO 20 09-10 M/S. SRINAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY C/O BHAT DURANI & ASSOCIATES (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS) FLAT NO.207, 1 ST FLOOR, YATRI BHAWAN-II, DURGA NAGAR, DALGATE, SRINAGAR, J&K, 190001 [PAN:AAALS2033H] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD,3(3), SRINAGAR KASHMIR, J&K. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 177 TO 179 (ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2007-08 TO 2009-10 ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-3, SRINAGAR. VS. M/S. SRINAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BENAMI, BYE-PASS, SRINAGAR. [PAN:AAALS2033H] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. UPENDER BHAT, LD. C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SH. PAWAN KUMAR (LD. CIT DR) DATE OF HEARING: 05.11.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.01.2019 ORDER PER BENCH THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE APPEALS NO.97 TO 99/ASR/201 4 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2014 PASSED BY LD. CIT( A), JAMMU FOR DIFFERENT ASST. YEARS I.E. 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009- 1, WHEREAS THE ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 2 REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO FILED APPEALS NO.177 TO 17 9/ASR/2014 AGAINST THE SAME ORDER DATED 06.01. 2014 . 2. AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR, THEREFORE ALL THE APPEALS ARE TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY FO R ADJUDICATION AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, THE FACTS AND GROUNDS OF ITA NO.97(ASR)/2014 HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR ADJUDICATION AND THE RESULT OF THE SAME SHOULD ALSO BE APPLICABLE MU TATIS MUTANDIS TO THE OTHER AFORESAID APPEALS. 3. AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME VOLUNTARILY U/S 139 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (HEREINAFTER CALL AS 'THE ACT'. ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 29 TH APRIL, 2010. THE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO DEVELOP NEW RESIDENTIAL COLONIES, MARKETS, MALLS, FLATS A ND THEIR ANCILLARY SUPPORTS. WHILE CARRYING OUT ALL THESE ACTIVIT IES, THE ASSESSEE CHARGES PREMIUM ON ALL OF THEM AND IN ADDITION TO THI S, IT ALSO CHARGES RENT, LEASE RENT AND OTHER MAINTENANCE CHARGES. WHILE FIXING THE PREMIUM OF PLOTS, FLATS AND SHOPS ETC. THE ELEMENT OF P ROFIT IS ALWAYS INCLUDED, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING OUT ANY CHARITY BY ALLOTTING THE SAID PROPERTIES AT LOSS OR AT COST PRICE, T HEREFORE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A L EGAL AUTHORITY IS UNDER A STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME/LOSS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. MOREOVER, SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS SPECIFIE D IN THE ACT. NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO ISSUED ON 09.06. 2010 FIXING THE HEARING OF THE CASE FOR 15.06.2010 AND THE SAME W AS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND VARIOUS INFORMATION HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR . THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE . ON FINDING THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNT AS REPORTED BY TH E A.G. J&K AFTER CONDUCTING INSPECTION OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, TH E ASSESSING ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 3 OFFICER OPINED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE TH E ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REQUIRED TO BE AUDITED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT AND IN PURSUANCE TO THE REQUISITE PERMISSION, M/S. K.B. SHARMA & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 172P/3, TRIKUTA NAGAR, JAMMU WA S APPOINTED AS SPECIAL AUDITOR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING SPECIAL AU DIT U/S 142(2A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ON THE BASIS OF TH E SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D WHILE CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 06-07-2012 BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS QUA PREMIUM INCOME, RENTAL INCOME, INTEREST I NCOME, MISCELLANEOUS INCOME GRANT RECEIVED UNRECOGNIZED PENSION/P ROVIDENT FUND, CLOSING STOCK/WIP PROVISION FOR FBT AND UNDERSTATE D INCOME. 4. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ) AND MAIN AND FOREMOST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WA S :- ' THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ISSUI NG AN ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF T IME. THAT AS PER PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION 4 OF SEC.153 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, THE LD. AO WAS DUTY BOUND UNDER LAW TO ISSUE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHIN 60 DAYS OF 25 TH APRIL, 2012, THE ACTUAL DATE OF RECEIPT OF AUDIT R EPORT U/S 142(2A) BY HIM. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 6 TH JULY, 2012 HAS BEEN ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY OF 60 DAYS TIME, MAKING BARRED AND CONSEQUEN TLY A VOID, INFRUCTUOUS AND A NON ENFORCEABLE ORDER. IT IS AN O RDER WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE SUMMARILY WITHOUT DISMISSED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND WITHOUT OFFERING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO LD. A.O. 5. IN ADDITION TO THE AFORESAID GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO RAISED OTHER 30 GROUNDS AS MENTIONED IN PARA NO.2 OF THE ORD ER IMPUGNED HEREIN, WHICH AT THIS STAGE ARE NOT BEING TAKEN INTO CO NSIDERATION AS WE ARE DECIDING THE MAIN LEGAL AND TECHNICAL GROUND FI RST. 6. IN SUPPORT OF ITS GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED VARIOUS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A), AS IT REFLECTS FROM THE OR DER. WHILE ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 4 ADJUDICATING THE LEGAL ISSUE QUA TIME BARRING ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED AFTER THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT I.E. 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE SPECIAL AUDIT REP ORT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 4. DETERMINATION : I HAVE CONSIDER THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE ASST. ORDER, SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, REMA ND REPORT FORM THE AO AND THE REPLY TO THE REMAND REPORT. 4.1 GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 RELATES TO THE PLEA OF THE APPELLA NT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 147 OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY TIME AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153(4) OF THE ACT. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND REPORT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS F OR TIME LIMITATION FOR PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 147 ARE PROVIDED UNDER SUB SECTION 2 OF THE ACT. SECTION 153(4) CONT AINS THE PROVISIONS FOR TIME LIMITATION OF ORDERS PASSED U/S 153A AND 153B OF THE ACT I.E. IN CASE OF SEARCH AND REQUISIT ION. THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153 (2) ARE REPRO DUCED AS UNDER: SECTION 153(2)NO ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE- COMPUTATION SHALL BE MADE U/S 147 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED. PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED ON OR AF TER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1999 BUT BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2000, SUCH ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE- COMPUTATION MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME UPTO THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE NOTICE U/S 148 WA S SERVED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005 (BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2011), THE PROVISION OF THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS 'ONE YEAR', THE WORD 'NINE MONTHS HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED)' THE EXPLANATION-1 OF SECTION 153 IS ALSO RELEVANT I N DECIDING THE ISSUE UNDER THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF EXPLANATION 1 T O SECTION 153, ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: EXPLANATION 1- IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATI ON FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:- . ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 5 (III) THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO DIRECTS THE ASSESSEE TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED UN DER SUB- SECTION 2(A) OF SECTION 142 AND ENDING THE LAST DAT E ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT UNDER SUB SECTION. SHALL BE EXCLUDED: PROVIDED THAT WHERE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EXCLUSION OF THE AFORESAID TIME OR PERIOD, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (1), [(1A), (1B)] [(2), (2A), AND (4)] AVAILABLE TO THE AO FOR MAKING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, RE-COMPUTATION, 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. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 29/04/2010. THE ORDER U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT WAS PA SSED ON 21.12.2011 DIRECTING THE APPELLANT TO GET HIS ACCOU NTS AUDITED WITHIN 90 DAYS I.E. ON OR BEFORE 21.03.2012. THIS P ERIOD WAS FURTHER EXTENDED VIDE ORDER OF THE AO BY 45 DAYS I. E., UP TO 05.05.2012. HOWEVER, ON CERTAIN ISSUES RAISED BY TH E APPELLANT, THE AO PASSED AN ANOTHER ORDER DATED 20.04.2012 WHE REBY THE EXTENDED TIME LIMIT WAS REVISED TO 59 DAYS INSTEAD OF 45 DAYS, WHEREBY THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE R EPORT BY 20.05.2012. AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 142(2A) T HE AO COULD HAVE EXTENDED THE DATE BY 180 DAYS, WHICH WAS 31 DA YS MORE THAN THE LAST EXTENSION. THE APPELLANT, IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS ARGUED THA T THE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT WAS SUBMITTED ON 24.04.2012 AN D NOT ON 08.05.2012 AND ACCORDINGLY THE TIME LIMIT FOR CALCU LATION OF 60 DAYS SHOULD BE COMPUTED FROM 24.04.2012 INSTEAD OF 08.05.2012. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ON THIS ACCOUNT AS ALSO REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR THE AO FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT WHERE TH E ACCOUNTS OF APPELLANT ARE PUT TO SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) I S TO BE COMPUTED FROM THE LAST DATE ON WHICH THE AUDIT REPO RT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED AS PROVIDED IN PARA (III) EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 153. THE DATE ON WHICH THE AUDIT REPORT WAS SUBMITTED IS NOT RELEVANT, IT IS THE DATE ON WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE REPORT WAS RELEVANT. THE APPELLANT IS OV EREMPHASIZING THE RECEIPT OF AUDIT REPORT ON 24.04.2012 AND COUNT ING 6O DAYS FROM THEN. THIS IS PERHAPS DUE TO OMISSION TO CONSI DER THE LAST EXTENSION BY THE AO DATED 20.04.2012 FOR FURNISHING REPORT BY 20/05/2012 AND ABSENCE OF ITS MENTION IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 6 BY THE AO. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT WAS R EQUIRED TO FURNISH THE REPORT ON 20.05.2012 AND ACCORDINGLY TH E ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING TIME BARRED ON 19.07.2012 I.E., 60 DAYS FROM 20.05.2012. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 06/0 7/2012 WHICH WAS WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER TH E ACT. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED . 7. THE MAIN LEGAL ISSUE AS RAISED AND EMPHASIZED BY THE LD . AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THESE CASES, AS PER OFFICE LETTER NO. ITO-WARD- 3(3)/SGR/2011-12/1169 DATED 21.12.2011, THE AO DIRE CTED THE ASSESSEE TO GET ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED BY SPECIAL AUDITOR AND T O FURNISH THE REPORT WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER . THE SAID REPORT WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE RECEIVED VIDE ACKNOWLEDGMEN T NO.09 DATED 12.04.2012 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 06.07.2012 WHI CH IS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT AS SPECIFIED IN THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT ISSUE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT VIDE ORDER NO. ITO-WAR D- (2)/SGR/3841DATED 20.04.2012, THE TIME LIMIT OF 45 DAYS WAS MODIFIED AND EXTENDED TO 59 DAYS FOR COMPLETION OF SP ECIAL AUDIT, WHICH WAS OTHERWISE EXPIRING ON 20.05.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT ONCE VIDE ORDER DATED 10.04.2012, TIME W AS EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 45 DAYS, THEN THERE WAS NO NEED FOR ANY SUBSTITUTION/EXTENSION OF DATE AND THEREFORE, THE ORDE R DATED 20.04.2012 IS FORGED, FABRICATED AND TAINTED DOCUMENT, BECAUSE THE SAME WAS NEITHER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE NOR UPON OTHER ADDRESSEES (THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, J&K, AND THE JT. CIT VS. CAMP AT JAMMU) TO WHOM COPY OF THE ORDER IS ALLEGE D TO BE SENT. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. DR THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD RAISED CERTAIN ISSUES WITH REGARD TO THE CONDUCT OF TH E SPECIAL AUDITOR M/S. K.B. SHARMA & ASSOCIATES AND THE AUDIT REPO RT AND DID NOT FURNISH THE REPORT BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE, UND ER THE PECULIAR ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 7 CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REVISED THE PERIOD, I.E. , 45 DAYS TO 59 DAYS, FOR COMPLETION AND FURNISHING OF SPECIAL A UDIT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE EXISTING TIME FOR 90 DAYS WAS EXTENDED TO 149 DAYS, WHICH WAS TO BE EXPIRE ON 20.05.2012. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT AS PER PROVISO TO SEC.142(2C), THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS EMPOWERED TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR SUBMISSION OF REPORT . FURTHER IN RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT EXTEND THE TIME SUO MOTU, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. JAGJIT SIN GH MILLS CO. LTD. VS. CIT, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9371/1993 [1994] 74 TAXMANN.COM 8 (P&H), WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN IN THE A BSENCE OF APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION OF SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT. 9. IN REPLY TO THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT ORDER NO. ITO WARD-3/SGR/2012-13/45 DATED 20-04-2012 WAS NEVER BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME IS FORGED, MANUFACTURED AND TAINTED DOCUMENT AND WAS NOT PASSED IN REGULAR COURSE BU T FABRICATED LATER IN ORDER TO FILL THE LACUNA, THE LD. DR HAS SUB MITTED THAT AS PER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 ALL THE DOCUMENTS KEPT IN OFFICIAL RECORD ARE TO BE PRESUMED AS GENUINE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT IF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED EVEN T HEN ALSO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE HELD AS VOID BECAUSE EX TENSION OF TIME IS JUST AN PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND DOES NO T MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INVALID. IN SUPPORT OF ITS ARGUMENTS, TH E LD. DR ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KOLKATA HIGH IN C IT VS. SRI SHYAMAL SARKAR IN ITA NO.815/2008 DECIDED ON 22 ND APRIL, 2015. 10. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEGAL ISSUE WHICH IS GROUND NO .1 AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO THE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF TH E ASSESSMENT ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 8 ORDER, ALLEGED TO BE PASSED BEYOND THE TIME ALLOWED A S PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND BEING TIME BARRED, THE SAME I S VOID, INFRUCTUOUS AND BAD IN LAW. SOME CHRONOLOGICAL DATES AND EVENTS ARE IMPORTANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE UNDER DISPUTE. SR. NO. DATE PARTICULARS 1. 29.04.2010 NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASST. YEAR2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10. 2. 31.12.2011 AS PER SEC.153(2), THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PASSED WITHIN 9 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED UPTO 31.12.2011. 3. 21.12.2011 VIDE LETTER NO. ITO, W-3(3)/SGR/2011-12/11-66-69, TH E ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO GET ITS ACCOUNT AUDITED U/ S 142(2A) OF THE ACT AND TO FURNISH THE AUDIT REPORTS WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE LETTER. 4. 21.03.2012 THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE AUDIT REPORT ON OR BEFORE 21 ST MARCH, 2012. HOWEVER, NO SUCH REPORT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UP TO THAT DATE. 5. 10.04.2012 VIDE OFFICE LETTER NO. ITO, WARD-3(3)/SGR/11-12/10, THE TIME PERIOD OF 90 DAYS AS SPECIFIED IN LETTER NO.11 66 DATED 21.12.2011, WAS EXTENDED FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF 45 DAYS FOR COMPLETION AND FILING OF SPECIAL AUDIT. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2012, THE AUDIT RE PORT WAS TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 05.05.2012. 7. 20.04.2012 THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUO MOTO MODIFIED THE TIME LIM IT GIVEN IN THE EXTENSION ORDER DATED 10.04.2012 AND EXTENDED THE TIME BY (59 DAYS INSTEAD OF 45 DAYS) F OR COMPLETION OF SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO FILE THE AUDIT REPORT ON OR BEFORE 20.05.2012. 8. 08.05.2012 AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER PARA NO.10 THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON 08.05.2012 THROUGH REGISTERED POST BEARING NO.SGA/ACCOUNTS/1997 DATED 31.03.2012 9. 06.07.2012 THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED. 11 . THE MAIN LEGAL QUESTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO THE INVALIDITY AND VOID-NESS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BE YOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT U/S 153(2) OF THE ACT. FOR THE SA KE OF ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 9 CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY, LET US TO REPRODUCE THE PROVISIO NS APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE. SECTION 142. INQUIRY BEFORE ASSESSMENT (1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT UNDER THIS ACT, THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER MAY SERVE ON ANY PERSON WHO HAS MADE A RETU RN UNDER SECTION 139 2 OR IN WHOSE CASE THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB- SECTIO N (1) OF THAT SECTION FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN HAS EXPIRED] A NOTICE REQUIRI NG HIM, ON A DATE TO BE THEREIN SPECIFIED,- [ (I) ] WHERE SUCH PERSON HAS NOT MADE A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, TO F URNISH A RETURN OF HIS INCOME OR THE INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON IN RES PECT OF WHICH HE IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THIS ACT, IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, OR] [ (II) ] TO PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED, SUCH ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REQUIRE, OR [ (III) ] TO FURNISH IN WRITING AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRI BED MANNERS INFORMATION IN SUCH FORM AND ON SUCH POINTS OR MATT ERS (INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF ALL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE ASSE SSEE, WHETHER INCLUDED IN THE ACCOUNTS OR NOT) AS THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER MAY REQUIRE: PROVIDED THAT- (A) THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE 2 DEPUTY] COMMISSIONER SHALL BE OBTAINED BEFORE REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A STATEMENT OF ALL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES NOT INCLUDED IN THE ACCOUNTS ; (B) THE 3 ASSESSING] OFFICER SHALL NOT REQUIRE THE PRODUCTION OF ANY ACCOUNTS RELATING TO A PERIOD MORE THAN THREE YEARS PRIOR TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR. (2) FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING FULL INFORMATION IN R ESPECT OF THE INCOME OR LOSS OF ANY PERSON, THE 4 ASSESSING] OFFICER MAY MAKE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE CONSIDERS NECESSARY. (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 O F THE OPINION THAT IT IS NECESSARY SO TO DO, HE MAY, WITH THE PREVI OUS APPROVAL OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER], DIRECT THE ASSESSE E 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 SUC H PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS TH E 10 ASSESSING] OFFICER MAY REQUIRE. (2B) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (2A) SHALL HAVE EFF ECT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN AUDITED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE OR OTHERWISE. ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 10 (2C) EVERY REPORT UNDER SUB- SECTION (2A) SHALL BE FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE 12 ASSESSING] OFFICER WITHIN SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE SPE CIFIED BY THE 13 ASSESSING] OFFICER: PROVIDED THAT THE 14 ASSESSING] OFFICER MAY, ON AN APPLICATION MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR ANY GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON, EXTEND THE SAID PERIOD BY SUCH F URTHER 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 NO T, IN ANY CASE, EXCEED ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS FROM THE DATE ON W HICH THE DIRECTION UNDER SUB- SECTION (2A) IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 153(2) NO ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE- COMPUTATION SHALL BE MADE U/S 147 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH TH E NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED. PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1999 BUT BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2000, SUCH ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME UPTO THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2002. PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2005 (BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2011), THE PROVISION OF THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS 'ONE YEAR', THE WORD 'NINE MONTHS HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED)' EXPLANATION 1 - IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PU RPOSES OF THIS SECTION:- (I) . (II) (IIA) (III) THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO DIRECTS THE ASSESSEE TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED UNDER SUB-SECTION 2(A) OF SECTION 142 AND ENDING THE LAST DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT UNDER SUB SECTION. SHALL BE EXCLUDED: PROVIDED THAT WHERE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE EXCLUSION OF THE AFORESAID TIME OR PERIOD, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (1), [(1A), ( 1B)] [(2), (2A), AND (4)] AVAILABLE TO THE AO FOR MAKING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, RE-COMPUTATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IS LESS THAN SIXTY DAYS, SUCH REMAINING ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 11 PERIOD SHALL BE EXTENDED TO SIXTY DAYS AND THE AFORESAID PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY. 12. FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, IT REFLECTS THAT A REPOR T UNDER SUB- SECTION 2(A) OF SECTION 142 IS REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN SUCH A PERIOD AS MAY BE SPECI FIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE PROVISIONS FURTHER PROVIDES THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, SUO MOTU OR AN APPLICATION MADE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR ANY GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON EX TEND THE SAID PERIOD BY SUCH FURTHER PERIOD OR PERIODS AS HE THINKS F IT, BUT AGGREGATE OF THE PERIOD ORIGINALLY FIXED AND THE PERIOD EXTEN DED SHALL NOT IN ANY CASE EXCEED 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE DIRECTION UNDER SECTION 142(2A) IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. THE TIME PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO DIRECTED THE ASSESSE TO GET ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED UNDER SUB-SECT ION (2A) OF SECTION 142 OF THE ACT, WAS 21 ST DECEMBER, 2011 AND ENDING WITH THE LAST DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNIS H A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT WAS 21 ST MARCH, 2012 IN THE INSTANT CASE. AS THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 29.04.2010, THERE FORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS SUPPOSED TO COMPLETED WITHIN 09 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE F.Y. IN WHICH THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED WHICH IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS 31 ST DECEMBER, 2011. HOWEVER, ON 21 ST DECEMBER, 2011, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO GET ITS ACCOUNT AUDITED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT WITH A DIRECTION TO FILE AUDIT REP ORT WITHIN 90 DAYS I.E. ON OR BEFORE 21 ST MARCH, 2012 AND THEREAFTER, THE TIME GETS EXPIRED. HOWEVER, IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTM ENT THAT THE TIME FOR FILING OF THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 142 (2A) WAS EXTENDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 10.04.2012 FOR A PERIOD OF 45 DAYS W HICH WAS EXPIRING ON 05.05.2012. AS PER PARA NO.10 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 12 THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 142(2A) WAS RECEIVED ON 08.05.201 2 THROUGH REGISTERED POST BEARING NO.SDA/ACCTS/1997 DATED 31.03.2 012 AND COGNIZANCE OF WHICH WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONTA INED IN PARA NOS. IX & X OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH ARE REPRO DUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. (IX) ACCORDINGLY VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER NO.ITO/W- 3(3)/SGR/2011-12/1166-69 DATED 22.12.2011, THE ASSE SSEE WAS DIRECTED TO GET HIS ACCOUNT AUDITED UNDER SECTI ON 142(2A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 FROM M/S K.B. SHARMA & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTS, 172P/3, TRIKUTA NAGAR JAMMU WHO WERE NOMINATED BY T HE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAMMU VIDE ABOVE ORDER. A COPY OF THE LETTER UNDER REFERENCE WAS ALSO ENDOR SED TO M/S. K.B. SHARMA & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 172P/ 3, TRIKUTA NAGAR JAMMU FOR CONDUCTING THE SPECIAL AUDI T OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO FURNISH A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT IN T HE PRESCRIBED FROM NO.6B READ WITH RULE 14A OF THE INC OME TAX RULE,1962 DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED. THE ASSESSEE WA S REQUIRED TO FURNISH REPORT OF THE AUDITORS WITHIN 9 0 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS LETTER. THE SAID LETTER WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. X. IN COMPLIANCE TO ABOVE DIRECTIONS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE AUDIT REPORT BY OR BEFORE 21-0 3-2012. HOWEVER, NO SUCH REPORT(S) WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E UP TO DATE THAT. HOWEVER, THE TIME WAS SUO MOTO EXTENDED BY THE UNDERSIGNED ON 10.04.2012 VIDE OFFICE LETTER NO.10 BY FURTHER 45 DAYS WHICH MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED T O FILE THE AUDIT REPORT BY EXTENDED TIME OF 135 DAYS AND T HE SAID DATE WAS EXPIRING ON 05.05.2012. FINALLY THE AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF M/S. K.B. SHARMA & COMPANY . CHARTER ACCOUNTS, 172P/3, TRIKUTA NAGAR, JAMMU FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED ON 08.05.2012 THROUGH REGISTERED POST BEARING NO.SDA/ACCTS/1997 DATED 31.03.2012 WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ADMITTEDLY THE DIRE CTIONS U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON 21-12-2011, TO FURNI SH THE AUDIT REPORT WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE SAID DIRECTIONS. THE SAID ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22 ND DECEMBER, 2012 AND ACCORDING TO DIRECTIONS, THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPOSED TO FILE THE ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 13 AUDIT REPORT ON OR BEFORE 21 ST MARCH, 2012, HOWEVER, UP TO THAT DATE, THE REPORT COULD NOT BE FILED AS THE SAME WAS NOT COMPLE TED BY THE AUDITOR DUE TO ONE OR THE OTHER REASON. HENCE, AFTER 2 1 ST MARCH, 2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OPTION EXCEPT TO FRAME THE A SSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. EVEN IF HE WANTED TO EXTEND T HE TIME FOR FILING THE REPORT, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE ON OR B EFORE 21 ST MARCH, 2012 BUT NOT LATER, HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 10.04.2012, H E SUO MOTU EXTENDED THE TIME FOR FURTHER 45 DAYS. IN FACT, THE FURTHER EXTENSION WAS VOID, ILLEGAL, NON-EST AND DOES NOT GIVE ANY JURISD ICTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT ON 06.07.2012 BECA USE IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS DATED 21.12.2011, THE AUDIT RE PORT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FILED UPTO 21 ST MARCH, 2012 AND AS PER SEC.153(2A) AND EXPLANATION-1 AND ITS PROVISO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS SUPPOSED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT ON OR BEFORE 20 TH MAY, 2012 I.E. WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE LAST DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE REPORT, THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON DATE D 06.07.2012 IS VOID, ILLEGAL, AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY STA ND IN THE EYES OF LAW. 14. ON THE CONTRARY, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE REVENUE DEPART MENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO EXTEND THE TIME UP TO 180 DAYS FOR FILING OF THE AUDIT REPORT AS PER PROVISO TO SUB- SECTION 2(C) OF SEC.142 OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS PER ORDER DAT ED 21-12-2011 THE TIME PERIOD OF 90 DAYS AS PRESCRIBED, WAS EXPIRED ON 21 ST MARCH, 2012, THEREFORE VIDE ORDER DATED 10.04.2012 WHICH WA S DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THE TIME FOR FILING OF THE AUDIT REP ORT WAS EXTENDED FURTHER FOR A PERIOD OF 45 DAYS. FURTHER THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON AU DIT REPORT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS COMPELLED TO REVISE T HE TIME PERIOD OF 45 DAYS (AS PER ORDER DATED 10.04.2012) TO 59 DAYS VIDE ITS ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 14 ORDER DATED 20.04.2012 AND IN VIEW OF THE ORDER, AU DIT REPORT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 20.05.2012 AND CONSEQ UENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED ON 06.07.2012 WHICH IS CERTAINL Y WITHIN TIME LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER LAW. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SAID STAND OF THE R EVENUE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DATED 20.04.2012 BEARIN G NO. ITO, WARD-2/SGR/2012-13/3841 BY WHICH THE TIME PERIOD MOD IFIED TO 59 DAYS INSTEAD OF 45 DAYS FOR FILING OF THE AUDIT REPORT IS NOT ONLY FORGED, FRIVOLOUS BUT IN FACT IS A TAINTED DOCUMENT, MADE LATE R ON WITHOUT SERVING THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT. IN RESPONSE TO THE A LLEGATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ALSO FILED THE AFFIDAVI T OF THE PROCESS SERVER MR. BRIJ MOHAN VAID, CONTENTS OF THE SAME A RE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- 1. THAT I WAS POSTED AS INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX RANGE- 3, SRINAGAR WITH ADDITIONAL CHARGE AS INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX WARD 3 (3) SRINAGAR, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 2. THAT I HAVE SUPERANNUATED FROM GOVERNMENT SERV ICE ON 31-10-2015. 3. THAT LETTER BEARING NO. ITOW2/SGR/2012-13/38-41 DAT ED HAS BEEN SERVED BY ME UPON SRINAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BEMINA, SRINAGAR ON 21 ST APRIL 2012 AS IS APPARENT FROM MY REPORT DATED 21 ST APRIL 2012 ON THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE THEN AO WARD 3(3) SRINAGAR, WHICH WAS DULY RECEIVED BY THE RECEIPT CLERK OF SDA OFFICE, BEMINA BY AFFIXING OFFI CE STAMP WITH DATE AND SIGNATURE . 4. THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE OF HAVING RECEIVED THE ORDER ON BEHALF OF THE THEN JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE,-3 SRINAGAR A T SRINAGAR OFFICE IS ALSO SEEN FROM NOTING OF THE SAID ORDER. 5. THAT THE SAID LETTER IS NEITHER FABRICATED NOT I NSTALLED LATER ON AS THE SAID LETTER HAS BEEN DULY SERVED BY ME UPON THE ASSESSEE AS IS SEEN FROM MY REPORT ON THE SAID ORDER. 6. THAT I AM SICK, UNABLE TO TRAVEL, MAY KINDLY BE EXEMPTED FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE. THAT WHATEVER IS STATED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND NOTHING HAS CONCEALED THEREIN. ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 15 THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ALSO FILED THE COPY OF THE AFO RESAID LETTER/DIRECTION DATED 20.04.2012 AND DAILY ORDER SHE ETS FROM WHICH IT REFLECTS THAT TIME PERIOD FOR FILING THE AUDIT REPORT WAS FURTHER EXTENDED VIDE ORDER DATED 20.04.2012. 15. IN REJOINDER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO THE EFFECT TH AT THE AFORESAID LETTER AS CLAIMED TO BE SERVED BY THE INCOME T AX DEPARTMENT WAS NEVER BEEN RECEIVED BY ASSESSEES OFFICE. FU RTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SH. IMTYAZ AHMAD AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT HE APPEARED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER (ITO)WARD-3(3), SRINAGAR ON 31.10.2011 ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND DULY SIGNED ALL THE ORDER SHEETS OF THAT DATE FOR A.Y.2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10. 16. WE HAVE PERUSED THE EXTENSION ORDERS DATED 10.04.2012 AND 20-04-2012 AND COMPARED THE SAME. THE ORDER DATED 10. 04.2012 WAS DULY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY ACKNOWLEDGING WITH ASSESSEE 'S SEAL AND RECEIPT NO.09 DATED 12.04.2012, HOWEVER, NOTHING APPEARS FROM ORDER DATED 20.04.2012 OR ITS RECORD QUA RECEIPT BY T HE ASSESSEE. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE PROCESS SERVER CLAIMED ' THAT LETTER BEARING NO. ITOW2/SGR/2012-13/38-41 DATED HAS BEEN SERVED BY ME UPON SRINAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BEMINA, SRINAGAR ON 21 ST APRIL 2012 AS IS APPARENT FROM MY REPORT DATED 21 ST APRIL 2012 ON THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE THEN AO WARD 3 (3) SRINAGAR, WHICH WAS DULY RECEIVED BY THE RECEIPT CLERK OF SDA OFFICE, BEMINA BY AFFIXING OFFICE STAMP WITH DATE AND SIGNATURE' . HOWEVER FROM THE LETTER DATED 20-4-2012, IT DOES NOT REFLECT THAT THE SAME WAS DULY RECEIVED BY THE RECEIPT CLERK OF SDA OFFICE, BEMINA BY AFFIXING OFFICE STAMP WITH DATE AND SIGNATURE. FOR CLARITY THE REMARKS ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW:- SIR, AS DIRECTED, THE LETTER HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE EM PLOYEE OF THE 'A' WHO WAS AVAILABLE 4.30 P.M ON 21 ST APRIL, 2012. SD/- ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 16 EVEN IN PARA NO. 4 OF ITS AFFIDAVIT, THE PROCESS SERVER CLAIMED 'THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE OF HAVING RECEIVED THE ORDER ON BEHAL F OF THE THEN JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE,-3 SRINAGAR AT SR INAGAR OFFICE IS ALSO SEEN FROM NOTING OF THE SAID ORDER' . BUT FROM THE ORDER DATED 20-04-2012, IT DOES NOT REFLECT THAT THE SAME WAS DELIVERED TO AND RECEIVED BY THE SAID OFFICERS OR ITS OFFICE. 17. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAND OF THE REVEN UE THAT AS PER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 ALL THE DOCUMENTS KEP T IN OFFICIAL RECORD ARE TO BE PRESUMED AS GENUINE. A REBUTTABLE PRE SUMPTION IS AN ASSUMPTION OF FACT ACCEPTED BY THE COURT UNTIL DISPROVED . ALL PRESUMPTIONS CAN BE CHARACTERIZED AS REBUTTABLE. IT IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT IS MADE IN LAW THAT WILL STAND AS A FACT UNLESS SOME ONE COMES FORWARD TO CONTEST IT AND PROVE OTHERWISE. HOWEVER WHE RE THE FACTS ARE DISPUTED AND SPECIFIC ALLEGATION HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT ANY DOCUMENTS THEN THE PRESUMPTION WILL BECOME REBUTTABLE A S IN THIS CASE, THE ASSEEEE HAS MADE SPECIFIC ALLEGATION QUA ORDER DA TED 20-4- 2012 AND ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT OF ITS OFFICERS TO CONTRO VERT THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE QUA GENUINENESS OF THE SAID ORDER. ALTHOUGH VA RIOUS OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE REVENUE DEPARTM ENT TO CORROBORATE THE SERVICE OF THE SAID EXTENSION ORDER DATE D 20.04.2012 AND TO VERIFY THE RECORDS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, J&K AND THE JCIT, RANGE, SRINAGAR CAMP AT JAMMU TO WHOM THE COPY OF THE EXTENSION WAS SERVED, BUT THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FAILE D TO ESTABLISH EITHER BY WAY OF DOCUMENTARY PROOF, I.E., DISPATCH A ND RECEIPT REGISTER AND/OR ANY AUTHENTIC EVIDENCE FOR COMMUNICATING TO OR R ECEIVING THE SAID EXTENSION ORDER DATED 20.04.2012 BY THE AFORESAI D AUTHORITIES. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED A LETTER OF ACKNOWL EDGMENT DATED 27-03-2018 ISSUED BY M/S. K.B. SHARMA & CO., CA, 172P/ 3, TRIKUTA NAGAR, JAMMU, WHO HAD AUDITED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 142(2A), ACKNOWLEDGING TO HAVE RECEIVED THE SAID ORDER DATED ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 17 20.04.2012. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE L D. AR THAT SPECIAL AUDITOR WAS APPOINTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THERE WA S EVERY POSSIBILITY THAT HE IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE REVEN UE DEPARTMENT AND MAY HAVE GIVEN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR EXTRANEOUS REASONS/CIRCUMSTANCES. WE HAVE AGAIN PERUSED THE ORDER DAT ED 20- 04-2012 FROM WHICH, NOWHERE REFLECTS THAT THE SAID ORDE R HAS DULY BEEN SERVED UPON OR ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE RECEIVED BY T HE SPECIAL AUDITOR, EVEN THE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO BRING ON RECO RD THE DISPATCH AND RECEIPT REGISTER OF THE SPECIAL AUDITOR, BECAUSE EVEN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER ISSUED 06 YEARS AFTER THE ISSUE OF EXTENSION ORDER DATED 20-04-2012 DOES NOT SPECIFY THE DATE OF RE CEIPT OF THE SAID ORDER OR THE RECORD (OF RECEIPT) ON THE BASIS OF W HICH THE SAID ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LETTER, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, IS ISSUED. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, LETTER OF THE AUDITOR IS ALSO UNSUPPORTED AND NOT RELIABLE AND THEREFORE DOES SERVE ANY PURPOSE. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT CLEARLY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE AUTHENTICITY OF EXTENSION ORDER DATED 20-04-2012, EITHER BY SERVING TO THE HIG HER AUTHORITIES AND/OR TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE G ENUINENESS OF ITS ORDER SHEETS ON WHICH THE NOTING OF ORDER DATED 20. 04.2012 HAVE BEEN MADE BECAUSE FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE VARIOUS ORD ER SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10, IT REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20.04.2012 EXTENDE D THE TIME TO 20.05.2012. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2012 DOES NOT FIND MENTION IN THE ORDER SHEETS RELEVANT TO A.Y.2007-08 AND 2009-10 BUT ONLY APPEARS IN ORDER SHEETS RELEVANT TO A .Y.2008-09. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S EMPLOYEE HAS ACKNOWLEDGE D WHILE SIGNING ALMOST EACH AND EVERY ORDER SHEETS, HOWEVER THE ORDER SHEETS OF A.Y.2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 WHICH PERTAIN ORDE R DATED 20.04.2012, ARE NOT REFLECTING THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OR THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH STRENGTHEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 18 ORDER DATED 20.04.2012 SEEMS TO BE FABRICATED IN ORDER TO COVER TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. 18. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT ORDER DATED 20-04-2012 DOES NOT FIND MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND EVEN THE SAME WAS NEV ER ESTABLISHED TO BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND TO THE OTH ER ADDRESSEES. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT EVEN AFTER AVAILING VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES DID NOT FILE ANY AUTHENTIC DOCUMENT TO P ROVE THE GENUINENESS OF EXTENSION ORDER DATED 20-04-2012 AND TR IED TO EVADE ITS LIABILITY BY SUBMITTING THAT DUE TO FLOODS OF 2004 IN KASHMIR, ALL THE RECORDS INTER ALIA DISPATCH REGISTER ETC. HAD GOT DAMAGED , HOWEVER EVERY EFFORT IS BEING MADE TO TRACE THE EVIDENCE REGA RDING THE DISPATCH OF THE SAID LETTER BUT COULD NOT GET SUCCESS. WE OBSERVE T HAT ALTHOUGH THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS BROUGHT THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS CIT(A) RECORDS, HOWEVER, IT HAS FAILED TO BRING THE RE QUIRED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE O RDER DATED 20.04.2012 BY WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED TO BE FRAMED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT AS PRE SCRIBED U/S 153(2) OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT HAS F AILED TO BRING ANY OF THE RECORDS SUCH AS RECEIPT/DISPATCH REGISTER AND/ OR ANY DOCUMENT MAINTAINED FOR DISPATCH OF THE LETTER DATED 2 0.04.2012 OR OTHERWISE IN NORMAL ROUTINE . EVEN THE REMARKS OF THE NOTICE SERVER, SERVING THE EXTENSION ORDER DATED 20-04-2012 ON 21-0 4-2012, DOES NOT SPECIFY THE NAME OR THE INITIALS OF THE ASSESSEE'S EMP LOYEE TO WHOM THE ORDER WAS DELIVERED/SERVED NOR, OR COURSE, CARR IED THE STAMP OF THE ASSESSEE, AS IS THE PRACTICE. CONSEQUENTLY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF ITS OR DER DATED 20.04.2012 BY WHICH THE TIME OF FILING OF THE SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT COULD HAVE EXTENDED UP TO 20.05.2012 AND THEREFORE, THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS PASSED ON 06.07.2012 COULD HAVE BEEN VALIDATE D. ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 19 19. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT ACCORDING TO THE ORDER DATED 10.0 4.2012 BY WHICH THE TIME PERIOD FOR FILING OF THE SPECIAL AUD IT REPORT WAS EXTENDED UP TO 45 DAYS WHICH WAS EXPIRING ON 05.05.201 2, HOWEVER, AS PER THE STAND OF THE REVENUE, BEFORE THAT DATE ITSE LF, THE SAID TIME PERIOD WAS MODIFIED AND EXTENDED TO 59 DAYS VIDE ORDE R DATED 20.04.2012. WE REALIZED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE ORDER D ATED 20-04-2012, DOES NOT FIND MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE R EVENUE DEPARTMENT NEITHER ESTABLISHED THE SERVICE OF THE SAID EXTENSION ORDER UPON THE ASSESSEE NOR BROUGHT ANY OF THE RECORDS SUCH AS RE CEIPT AND DISPATCH REGISTER AND/OR ANY DOCUMENT MAINTAINED FOR D ISPATCH OF THE LETTER DATED 20.04.2012 OR OTHERWISE IN NORMAL ROUTI NE, BY WHICH THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF THE SAID ORDER COULD BE ESTABL ISHED. 20. ALTHOUGH WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAND OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT THAT EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR SUBMISSION OF SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT, HOWEVER IN THE INSTANT CASE, ORDER U/S 14 2(2A) WAS PASSED ON 21 ST DEC. 2011 AND TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF THE AUDIT R EPORT WAS FIXED AS 90 DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER WHI CH WAS EXPIRED ON 21 ST MARCH, 2012 AND UP TO 9 TH APRIL, 2012, NOTHING HAPPENED, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION OF EXTENSION O F THE TIME FOR FILING OF SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT AND/OR NOT EXTENDED SUO MOTO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ONCE THE TIME LIMIT GETS EXP IRED BY EFFLUX OF TIME, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EMPOWERED TO E XTEND IT FURTHER, THEREFORE ON THIS REASON ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER IS VOID AND CANNOT BE ACTED UPON. HENCE UNDER THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE AND IN VIEW OF CONSIDERATIO NS, DELIBERATIONS AND ANALYZATIONS MADE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING VOID PASSED AFTER THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER THE L AW, CONSEQUENTLY LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND THEREFORE QUASHED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 20 21. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ONE MORE LEGAL GROUND I.E. G ROUND NO.2 TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS NOT HAVING THE JURISDICTION OF TH E SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AS PER CBDT GUIDELINES. AS W E HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, IT WOU LD NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO TRAVEL TO OTHER GROUNDS WHICH WILL AMO UNTS TO ACADEMIC EXERCISE ONLY. 22. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED AND BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENTS STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.01.2019. SD/- (N.K.CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER PROPOSED BY MY LD. BROTHER JM IN THE CAPTIONED APPEALS. THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE ARISING IN T HESE APPEALS IS WHETHER THE EXTENSION DATED 20.04.2012 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IS VALID, TO WHICH SANCTION IN LAW COULD THEREFORE BE GIVEN IN-AS-MUCH AS, WHERE NOT SO, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS BECOME BARRED BY TIME. THE SAM E STANDS DELINEATED AT PARAS 7 AND 10 (READ WITH PARA 6) OF THE PROPOSE D ORDER. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH MY LD. BROTHER AS FAR AS THE ADJUDICATION OF T HIS ISSUE IS CONCERNED. THE EXTENSION BY THE AO VIDE ORDER NO. ITO-WARD(2)/SGR/ 3841 DATED 20.04.2012, MODIFYING THE 45 DAY EXTENSION DATED 10 .04.2012, EXPIRING ON 05.05.2012, BY EXTENDING IT TO 59 DAYS, I.E., UP TO 20.05.2012, IS NOT VALID IN LAW FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE PROP OSED ORDER. THE SAME IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT BY THE AO TO SAVE THE TIME LIM ITATION THAT WOULD OTHERWISE ATTEND THE ASSESSMENTS, I.E., 60 DAYS BEG INNING 06.05.2012, OR 04.07.2012. ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 21 SO, HOWEVER, I AM UNABLE TO PERSUADE MYSELF TO ACCE PT THE ASSAILING OF THE FIRST EXTENSION VIDE ORDER DATED 10.04.2012, IN WHICH CASE THE TIME LIMITATION OF 60 DAYS FOR COMPLETING THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENTS SHALL RUN FROM 22.03.2012 (AND NOT 06.05.2012). THE SAME HAS BEEN FOUND NOT VALID AS THE EARLIER TIME LIMITATION EXPIRED ON 21.03.2012. THE AO DID NOT ACT THEREON, I.E., UP TO 09.04.2012. THE POWER OF THE A O FOR FURTHER EXTENSION, WHICH COULD U/S. 142(2C) EXTEND UP TO 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE DIRECTION U/S. 142(2A), LAPSED BY EFFLUX OF TIM E. THE SAID EXTENSION, IN ORDER TO BE VALID, AS ARGUED BEFORE US, AND WHICH H AS FOUND APPROVAL PER THE PROPOSED ORDER, COULD BE EXERCISED ONLY UP TO 21.03 .2012, AND NOT THEREAFTER (REFER PARA 20 OF THE PROPOSED ORDER). IN MY VIEW, NO SUCH BLANKET RESTRICTION COULD BE PLACED WHERE THE EXERCISE OF POWER DOES NO T SUFFER FROM ANY VICE OF MALA FIDES , I.E., IS BONA FIDE , AND IN FURTHERANCE OF THE OBJECT OF THE PROVISION. OF COURSE, THE EXTENDED TIME SHOULD FALL , AS IT DOES, WITHIN THE 180 DAY TIME LIMIT FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE DIRE CTION U/S. 142(2A), AVAILABLE TO THE AO U/S. 142(2C). IN THE FACTS OF T HE CASE, THE AO, SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECEIPT OF THE AUDIT REPORT DATED 21/3/2012 FROM THE ASSESSEE (VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 31/3/2012/ PB PG. 14), RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE ASSESSEE, ADDRESSED TO THE AUDITOR, RAISING SER IOUS CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AUDIT WAS CONDUCTED WAS QUESTIONED, NAY, SHARPLY CRITICIZED, ALLEGING T HAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE BEFORE HIM HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AUDITOR (PB PGS. 40- 41). THIS WAS IN FACT PRECEDED BY A LETTER DATED 21 .03.2012 BY THE AUDITOR TO THE AO STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COOPERATIN G WITH THE AUDIT (PB PG. 47). IT WAS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE AO E XTENDED THE TIME (UP TO 05/5/2012) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 10.04.2012 ABOUT THE PASSING OF WHICH ON 10.04.2012, OR ITS RECEIPT IN DUE COURSE, THERE IS CLEARLY, AS I SEE, NO CONTROVERSY. THIS WAS IN FACT FOLLOWED BY A LETTER DATED 23.04.2012 (PB PG. ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 22 37) BY THE AO TO THE AUDITOR STATING, WITH REFERENC E TO THE COMMUNICATION BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIM DATED 11.04.2012 AND HIS DISCUS SION WITH THE AUDITOR ON 20.04.2012, THAT THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE BE ADDRESSED AND THE REPORT SUBMITTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXTENDED TIME LIMI T. NONE OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS ARE DISPUTED. IN FACT, THE AUDIT REP ORT TAKEN ON RECORD AND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS STAND FINALLY FR AMED IS THAT FURNISHED IN PURSUANCE TO THE REVISED TIME LIMIT. IT IS RATHER QUEER THAT THE ASSESSEE, AT WHOSE INST ANCE, IN EFFECT, THE TIME FOR OBTAINING THE AUDIT REPORT WAS EXTENDED, S HOULD QUESTION THE SAME. TRUE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT IN AS MANY WORDS REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE TIME PERIOD, AND WHICH ALSO EXPLAINS THE USE OF WORDS I N EFFECT IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE. THAT, HOWEVER, ONLY SUITS THE ASSESSEE IN -AS-MUCH AS THE AUDIT REPORT AS MADE WOULD STAND TO BE RUBBISHED FOR WANT OF OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DEFEATING THUS THE V ERY PURPOSE OF, AND THE ENTIRE EXERCISE IN, INVOKING SECTION 142(2A). IT IS THE AO WHO IS CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE DUTY OF ADMINISTERI NG THE ACT, AND WHICH HE HAS TO DO WITH RECTITUDE AND FAIRNESS. AS LONG AS I T DOES SO, HIS COMPETENCE, WHICH IS BEING QUESTIONED, CANNOT BE SO UNLESS SPEC IFICALLY PREVENTED OR FORBIDDEN BY LAW. SECTION 142(2C), PER PROVISO THERETO, RATHER, EMPLOYS AN ENABLING LANGUAGE, SO THAT THE AO CAN EITHER SUO MOTU OR ON AN APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON/S, EXTEND THE TIME FOR OBTAINING THE AUDIT REPORT U/S. 142(2A) AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT BREACH THE 180 DAY TIME LIMIT. THIS POSITION IN LAW STANDS ABUNDAN TLY CLARIFIED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN JAGJIT SINGH MILLS CO. LTD. V. CIT (IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9371/1993 [1994] 74 TAXMANN.COM 8 (P&H ) (REFER PARA 8/PG. 7 OF THE PROPOSED ORDER). ITA NOS.97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179/ASR/2014 (A.YS. 2007-08 TO 2009-10 ) M/S. SR INAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. ITO 23 THERE WERE THEREFORE IN MY VIEW GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE AO TO HAVE EXTENDED THE TIME P ERIOD ON 10.04.2012, ALLOWING A PERIOD UP TO 05.05.2012 FOR COMPLETION O F THE AUDIT MEETING THE ASSESSEES OBJECTIONS. GOOD FAITH MARKS HIS THIS AC TION, UNDERTAKEN WITH A VIEW TO ADDRESS THE ASSESSEES CONCERNS AND OBTAIN A REPORT CONTAINING CORRECT INFORMATION. THERE IS, FURTHER, NO QUESTION OF THE AO HAVING LOST HIS POWER FOR EXTENSION BY EFFLUX OF TIME; THE SAID POW ER BEING ONLY AN ENABLING POWER TO EFFECTUATE HIS POWER TO DIRECT THE ASSESSE E TO SUBMIT AN AUDIT REPORT U/S. 142(2A). I AM THEREFORE, WITH RESPECT, NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OPINION EXPRESSED BY MY LD. BROTHER, JM AT PARA 20 OF THE P ROPOSED ORDER, WITH WHICH ORDER I AM OTHERWISE, AS AFORE-STATED, IN AGR EEMENT. THE FINAL CONCLUSION, I.E., OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS BEING BARRED BY TIME, THUS, HOLDS, AND THIS OPINION BY ME BE THEREFORE BE REGAR DED AS AN ASSENT ORDER. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. S D/- PLACE: AMRITSAR (SANJAY ARORA) DATE: 18/1/2019 AM, AMRITSAR BENCHES /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) M/S. SRINAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY C/O BHAT DURANI & ASSOCIATES (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS) FLAT NO.207, 1 ST FLOOR, YATRI BHAWAN-II, DURGA NAGAR, DALGATE, SRINAGAR, J&K, 190001 (2) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD,3(3), SRINAGAR, J&K. (3) THE CIT(A), JAMMU, J&K. (4) THE CIT CONCERNED. (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER FILENAME: SRINAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 97 TO 99 & 177 TO 179-14 DIRECTORY: D:\DOCUMENT\NKC ORDERS 2018 TEMPLATE: C:\USERS\ETC PARMOD\APPDATA\ROAMING\MICROSOFT\TEMPLATES\NORMAL.D OT TITLE: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL SUBJECT: AUTHOR: RAHUL PRABHAKAR KEYWORDS: COMMENTS: CREATION DATE: 12/18/2018 5:46:00 PM CHANGE NUMBER: 393 LAST SAVED ON: 1/23/2019 11:27:00 AM LAST SAVED BY: ETC PARMOD TOTAL EDITING TIME: 1,058 MINUTES LAST PRINTED ON: 1/23/2019 11:27:00 AM AS OF LAST COMPLETE PRINTING NUMBER OF PAGES: 23 NUMBER OF WORDS: 6,991 (APPROX.) NUMBER OF CHARACTERS: 39,852 (APPROX.)
Mehul