Tikka Brijendra Singh V. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla and Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla

ITA/4007/2013

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Tikka Brijendra Singh against various orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla, concerning assessments for different assessment years. The primary legal issues revolved around the validity of the assessment orders in terms of the limitation period prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Wealth Tax Act, 1951. The appellants argued that the assessments were time-barred, while the respondents contended that the time taken during legal proceedings should be excluded from the limitation period. The court examined the sequence of events, including previous assessments, appeals, and court orders, to determine the applicable limitation period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 796055 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Gulab Chand Moti Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Peeru Lal Mohan Lal Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Jodhana Real Estate Development Corporation (P) Ltd, Bhatia Motor Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharti Engg. Corpn Vs. Union of India & ors, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhan Textile (P) Ltd, Manik Chand Burman Vs. Income Tax Officer, Spice Infotainment Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Wealth Tax Act, 1951, Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VINAY KUTHIALA; VANDANA KUTHIALA
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK AGRAWAL; AMIT CHANDEL; SATBIR SINGH
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Income Tax; Legal heirs; Limitation Period; Self acquired property; Wealth Tax
• Section: 143(3); 25; 153(2); 16(3); 153(3); 16(5)

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. ITAs No.7 of 2014 a/w ITAs No. 4004, 4005, 4006, 4007, 4008, 4009 of 2013, 8 of 2014, WTAs No. 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4005, 4006 of 2013, 1,2,3 of 2014. Reserved on: 7.10.2015 Decided on: 3.11.2015 ITA No. 7 of 2014 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla ..Respondent ITA No. 4004 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla ..Respondent ITA No. 4005 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla ..Respondent ITA No. 4006 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla ..Respondent ITA No. 4007 of 2013 2 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla .Respondent ITA No. 4008 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla .Respondent ITA No. 4009 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla ..Respondent ITA No. 8 of 2014 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla .Respondent WTA No. 4001 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla .Respondent WTA No. 4002 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla .Respondent 3 WTA No. 4003 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla ..Respondent WTA No. 4004 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla ..Respondent WTA No. 4005 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla .Respondent WTA No. 4006 of 2013 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla .Respondent WTA No. 1 of 2014 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla .Respondent WTA No. 2 of 2014 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant 4 Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla .Respondent WTA No. 3 of 2014 Tikka Brijendra Singh Appellant Vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Shimla .Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellant(s): Mr. Deepak Agrawal, Mr.Amit Singh Chandel and Mr. Satbir Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge: Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these appeals, so they are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Out of 20 appeals before the ITAT, 9 appeals were filed by the assesses against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Shimla dated 31.12.2009 relating to assessment years 1971-72 to 1979-80 against the order passed 5 under Section 16(3) of Wealth Tax Act, 1951. Further eight appeals were filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla dated 18.1.2010 relating to assessment years 1973-74 to 1980-81 against the order passed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and three appeals were filed by the assess against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Shimla dated 12.1.2010 relating to assessment years 1994-95 to 1996-97 against the order passed u/s 16(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Three appeals under the Wealth Tax Act were allowed, whereas remaining appeals under the Income Tax Act as also Wealth Tax Act were partly allowed against which the assessee has filed the present appeals. 4. All these appeals were admitted on the following questions of law: i) Whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. ITAT was justified in holding that the assessment order passed on 7.2.2007 is within the limitation period and hence a valid return ? 6 ii) Whether under the present facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the Ld. ITAT is perverse in upholding the assessment order as valid and not barred by limitation?. We have the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. Sh. Deepak Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously argued that the ITAT was not justified in rejecting the issue of limitation without appreciating the provisions of Section 153(2) of Income Tax Act ( for short the ‘Act’), wherein it was provided that if the order is passed setting aside or cancelling an assessment on or after 1.4.1999, but before 1.4.2000, then such an order of fresh assessment was required to be made at any time upto 31.3.2002 whereas in the present assessment, the order was passed much beyond the stipulated period on 8.2.2007 and was thus clearly time barred. In other words, the assessment in all events was required to be completed by 31.2.2002 whereas the same was barred by limitation. 7 6. On the other hand, Sh.Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mrs. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate has vehemently argued that it settled law that the period in which the proceedings remained pending in the court, have to be excluded while computing limitation and in case such period is excluded, then no exception to the proceedings could be taken as the same was well within the prescribed period of limitation. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is imperative that we give the seriatim list of events in relation to the proceedings completed by various authorities in the case of the assessee and as has been correctly noted in the impugned order and are reproduced as under: 16.3.1990 Assessment order under Section 16(5) at assessed Wealth of `1,50,000/- was passed 22.2.1993 CWT(A), Patiala vide order under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to make assessment de-novo and determine the correct status of the assessee. The 8 Assessing Officer was also directed to keep in view the finding of CIT (Appeals) given in order dated 29.7.1985 in appeal No. 134/84-85 in the Wealth Tax case of assessee itself relating to assessment year 1978-79. 30.3.1995 The assessment order under Section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act was passed 7.1.1997 CWT (A), Patiala passed an order under section 25(2) vide which the order passed on 30.3.1995 was cancelled with the directions to compute the wealth afresh. 6.6.1997 Fresh assessment order was passed under Section 16(5) of the Wealth Tax Act. 17.1.2000 CWT(A),Patiala set aside the assessment made to be framed de-novo. 23.5.2000 Date of demise of Raja Harmohinder Singh, assessee 1.9.2003 Civil suit between legal heirs of assessee and other persons was decreed by Ld. ADJ in favour of four claimants and also status of legal heirs decided. 20.4.2004 The Tribunal in the appeal filed by the Revenue upheld the order passed by CWT(A), Patiala and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as the case was taken up for re-assessment as per the 9 direction of CWT(A), Patiala. 1.12.2005 Interim order was passed by Hon’ble High Court staying the proceedings before WTO/ITO in Civil Writ Petition filed by the assessee. 8.3.2006 The Hon’ble High Court of HP stayed the assessment proceedings in view of the civil proceedings pending before them concerning status of various claimants as legal representatives of late Raja Harmohinder Singh. 8.3.2006 The assessment proceedings were kept in abeyance 26.7.2006 Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court in appeal in CS between legal heirs of the assessee. 11.12.2006 The interim order of the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh was vacated 8.2.2007 Assessment completed in the hands of legal heir of late Raja Harmohinder Singh. 8. In so far as the Wealth Tax Assessments initially made are concerned, these were either vacated or set aside by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), Patiala and even the income tax 10 assessment were set aside by the CITA (Appeal), Patiala on 17.1.2000. 9. It is also not in dispute that in the year 1995, a civil suit was filed for partition and rendition of accounts and injunction against the predecessor in interest of assessee, i.e. Raja Harmohinder Singh and others wherein the interim stay order was passed on 2.8.1995, whereby Raja Harmohinder Singh was restrained from alienating the property and at the same time, Land Acquisition Officer was directed not to disburse any compensation amount to any person. Raja Harmohinder Singh in the meanwhile expired on 23.5.2000 and thereafter the suit was ultimately decreed in favour of asessee on 1.9.2003. The assessee and his four other L.Rs i.e. Smt.Saroj Devi, Rajiv Kumar, Ragina Singh and Vijay Singh were declared entitled to the property left by Raja Harmohinder Singh. 10. In these proceedings, learned Addl. District Judge (1), Kangra held Bali Ram Sharma, Sneh Lata Sharma and Anil Kumar Shama to be the bonafide purchasers of 47% of re-determined compensation. It was also ordered that the remaining amount of 11 determined compensation would be equally apportioned between L.Rs of Raja Harmohinder Singh. The claim set up by Ajay Singh and his mother Rani Bhagyawati as being son and wife of Raja Harmohinder Singh was not accepted. This led to the filing of appeal at the instance of Ajay Singh before this court and the decree passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Kangra dated 1.9.2013 was ordered to be stayed. At the same time, the assessee also filed an appeal before this court being RFA No.310/2003 for modification of the aforesaid judgment and decree. 11. Before the aforesaid appeals could come up for final hearing, both the parties to the appeal settled the dispute amicably outside the court themselves and stated that they have no objection in case the suit was fully decreed in favour of assessee herein. In the suit, filed between the L.Rs of Raja Harmohinder Singh, three persons Sh.,Bali Ram, Sneh Lata Sharma and Anil Kumar Sharma, made application for becoming parties for their claim for assignment/sale of 47% share . The assessee conceded to the fact that the said property was not co-parcenary 12 property. This court accordingly held that the property was to be treated as self acquired property of Raja Harmohinder Singh vide its judgment dated 25.7.2006. 12. As observed earlier, the issue involved in RFA No. 271 of 2003 was the claim raised by Sh.Ajay Singh, wherein he claimed to be the son of Raja Harmohinder Singh which was negated by the trial court and even this court held that Ajay Singh had no right, title and interest to the assets of Raja Harmohinder Singh. The second issue which was decided in RFA No. 271 of 2003 was that three persons aforesaid were held entitled to 47% share of re-determined compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. It was thus held that the plaintiff in RFA No.310/2003 i.e. the assessee alone to the exclusion of the aforesaid three person was not entitled to succeed to the estate of Raja Harmohinder Singh by way of succession, whereas three purchasers were held entitled to 47% share in the re-determined compensation amount. This court further noted as under: “In RFA No.310 of 2003 Income Tax Department has filed an application for impleadment, being CMP No. 145 of 2005. Thereafter, it filed a second 13 application, being CMP No. 372 of 2005 for amendment of the aforesaid earlier application on the ground that the tax liability of Raja Harmohindera Singh has been reduced in appeal from Rs.Two crores to Rs.Twelve lacs. Reply to this application has been filed by the appellant in which the appellant has disputed his tax liability. Because of the pending litigation between the parties before the Tax Authorities and the fact that the tax liability of Raja Harmohindra Singh has been disputed, I am not inclined to pass any order on the aforesaid application of the Revenue. The application accordingly is dismissed. However, the revenue is at liberty to take such teps for recovery of tax due as are available to it under the law. 13. It was on 25.7.2006 that the judgment in RFA No.271 of 2003 and RFA No. 310 of 2003 was passed by this Court under which the status of the assets of Raja Harmohinder Singh, i.e. the assessee were held to be self acquired assets and not part of HUF. It was further held that 47% share of re-determined compensation awarded amount did not belong to the assessee but was to be distributed amongst three claimants to whom the assessee had sold his rights. Lastly, the issue of contradictory claims of L.Rs of original assessee, i.e. Raja Harmohinder Singh was also finally decided which laid to rest by this court vide aforesaid judgments. 14 14. Earlier to this, the assessee filed CWP No. 1251 of 2005 wherein he pointed out that his predecessor-in-interest, i.e. Raja Harmohinder Singh was the Karta of Joint Hindu Family and had received different awards under the Land Acquisition Act and certain awards had also been received by Smt. Suraj Devi in the capacity of Power of Attorney. It was further claimed that the award/compensation of HUF property were reflected in the returns filed by Raja Harmohinder Singh, i.e. with the wealth tax and income tax authorities and through the nature of properties were correctly described as HUF in the wealth tax returns, but Raja Harmohinder Singh had shown Suraj Devi as his wife and Tikka Vijay Singh as his son and as members of HUF which was factually incorrect as per the findings earlier recorded by the Addl. District Judge, Kangra. It was further prayed that till the final status of late Raja Harmohinder Singh is decided, the matter be not carried forward by the tax authorities. 15. On 1.12.2005, this court directed the Assessing Officer and Chief CIT, Palampur not to take decision on the notices issued to the assessee. 15 16. The Income Tax department, through the ACIT, filed an application in CWP No.1251 of 2005, wherein it was pointed out that pursuant to the directions issued by CIT (Appeals) on 17.1.2000, the assessment proceedings would come time barred on 31.3.2006 and, therefore, they should be permitted to proceed with the assessment. On 8.3.2005, the interim order earlier passed on 1.12.2005 was modified and further proceedings before the respondent, i.e. Income Tax department in regard to the assessment of Raja Harmohinder Singh were directed to be stayed till the time, status of L.Rs is decided. 17. However, on 11.12.2006, this order was also vacated by observing as under: “In the present writ petition, the main dispute was with regard to the status of the legal representatives of Raja Harmohinder Singh father of the petitioner which was to be adjudicated upon in RFA No. 271 of 2003 and RFA No. 310 of 2003. Admittedly, these two appeals have been decided and the status of the parties has also been decided by this Court. We have been informed that Special Leave Petition against the judgment of this Court is pending before the Apex Court. 16 In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the writ petition has become infructuous. Same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. Interim order is vacated and all the pending applications are dismissed in view of the dismissal of the writ petition.” 18. It was on 8.2.2007 that the assessment order finally came to be passed. As observed earlier, these proceedings were challenged before ITAT as being barred by time. This contention of the assessee was rejected on the ground that till and so long conflicting claims of the L.Rs of the assessee were pending adjudication before the competent court of jurisdiction, issue of service of notice on the L.Rs would also be open to debate and the proceedings cannot be thus concluded. ITAT also referred to in its order various interim orders passed initially by the Addl. District Judge, Kangra and thereafter this court to reject the contention of the assessee. The plea of the assess was also rejected on the ground that once it had not chosen to question and challenge the validity of the notice issued to him before this court, the said ground was hardly open to challenge before it. 17 19. Having set out the factual background, it is now necessary that we refer to the provisions of law that provide for the time limit for completion of assessments and re-assessments. Section 17-A of the Wealth Tax Act and Section 153 of the Income Tax Act provides time limit for completion of assessment and reassessment and read thus: “17A Time-limit for completion of assessment and reassessment.--- (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 16 at any time after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year in which the net wealth was first assessable: [Provided that, (a) where the net wealth was first assessable in the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1987, or any earlier assessment year, such assessment may be made on or before the 31st day of March, 1991; (b) where the net wealth was first assessable in the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, such assessment may be made on or before the 31st day of March, 1992.] [Provided further that in case the assessment year in which the net wealth was first assessable is the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2004 or any subsequent year, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words “two years”, the words “twenty-one months” had been substituted] 18 (2) No order of assessment or reassessment shall be made under section 17 after the expiry of [one year] from the end of the financial year in which the notice under sub-section (1) of that section was served: [Provided that where the notice under sub-section (1) of section 17 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the 1st day of April, 2000, such assessment or reassessment may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 2002:] [Provided further that where the notice under sub- section (1) of section 17 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 2005, the provisions of this sub- section shall have effect as if for the words “one year”, the words “nine months” had been substituted.] (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- sections (1) and (2), an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order passed on or after the 1st day of April, 1975, under section [23A], section 24 or section 25, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of [one year] from the end of the financial year in which the order under section [23A] or section 24 is received by the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] or, as the case may be, the order under section 25 is passed by the Commissioner: [Provided that where the order under section 23A or section 24 is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 25 is passed by the Commissioner, on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the 1st day of April, 2000, such an order of fresh assessment 19 may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 2002:] [Provided further that where the order under section 23A or section 24 is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 25 is passed by the Commissioner, on or after the 1st day of April, 2005, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words “one year”, the words “nine months” had been substituted.] (4) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the assessment or reassessment made on the assessee or any other person in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order under section 23, section 24, section 25, section 27 or section 29 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, and such assessment or reassessment may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), be completed at any time. Explanation 1.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section— (i) the time taken in reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 39, or (ii) the period during which the assessment proceeding is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, or [(iia) the period (not exceeding sixty days) commencing from the date on which the 187 [Assessing Officer] received the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 18C and ending with the 20 date on which the order under sub-section (3) of that section is made by him, or] (iii) in a case where an application made before the Wealth-tax Settlement Commissioner under section 22C is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing from the date on which such application is made and ending with the date on which the order under sub- section (1) of section 22D is received by the 188 Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (2) of that 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-sections (1), (2) and (3) available to the Assessing Officer, 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:] [Provided further that where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates under section 22HA, the period of limitation referred to in this section available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, shall, after the exclusion of the period under sub-section (4) of section 22HA, be not less than one year; and where such period of limitation is less than one year, it shall be deemed to be extended to one year.] 21 Explanation 2. —Where, by an order referred to in sub-section (4), any asset is excluded from the net wealth of one person and held to be the asset of another person, then, an assessment in respect of such asset on such other person shall, for the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 17 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in the said order, provided such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.]” “Section 153 of Income Tax Act Time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments. 153. (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of— (a) two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable ; or (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 139, whichever is later : (2) No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under section 148 was served : 22 Provided that where the notice under section 148 was served on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the 1st day of April, 2000, such assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 2002 : (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- sections (1) and (2), in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1971, and any subsequent assessment year, an order of fresh assessment in pursuance of an order under section 250 or section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or cancelling an assessment, may be made at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the order under section 250 or section 254 is received by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. Provided that where the order under section 250 or section 254 is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner or as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 but before the 1st day of April, 2000, such an order of fresh assessment may be made at any time up to the 31st day of March, 2002. (3) The provisions of sub sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the following classes of assessment, reassessment and recomputations which may, 23 ( subject to the provisions of sub section (2A) be completed at any time- (i) (***) (iI) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260, 262, 263, or 264 (or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act ; (iii) where, in the case of a firm, an assessment is made on a partner of the firm in consequence of an assessment made on the firm under section 147. Explanation1- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this Section- (i) the time taken in reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be re-heard under the proviso to section 129, or (ii) the period during which the assessment proceeding is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, or (iia) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer intimates the Central Government or the prescribed authority, the contravention of the provisions of clause (21) or clause (22B) or clause (23A) or clause (23B) or sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10, under clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 and ending with the date on which the copy of the order withdrawing the approval or rescinding the notification, as the case may be, under those clauses is received by the Assessing Officer, or* [(iii) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited under 24 sub-section (2A) of section 142 and ending with the last date on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit under that sub-section; or (iv) [***] (iva) the period (not exceeding sixty days) commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer received the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 158A and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (3) of that section is made by him, or (v) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission under section 245C is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing from the date on which such application is made and ending with the date on which the order under sub- section (1) of section 245D is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (2) of that section, or (vi) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings under sub- section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the order rejecting the application is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (3) of section 245R, or (vii) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings under sub- section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the advance ruling pronounced by it is received by the Commissioner under sub-section (7) of section 245R, shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid time or period, the period of limitation referred to in sub-sections (1), (2 and (2A) available to the Assessing 25 Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, 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: Explanation 2.—Where, by an order referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (3), any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee for an assessment year, then, an assessment of such income for another assessment year shall, for the purposes of section 150 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order. Explanation 3.—Where, by an order referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (3), any income is excluded from the total income of one person and held to be the income of another person, then, an assessment of such income on such other person shall, for the purposes of section 150 and this section, be deemed to be one made in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in the said order, provided such other person was given an opportunity of being heard before the said order was passed.” 20. On a careful reading of Section 153, we find that there is fine distinction between the application of Section 153 (2A) and 153(3) (ii) of the Act. Section 153 26 (2A) of the Act would apply to those cases where fresh assessment is required to be made in pursuance of an order of the appellate authorities passed under section 250 or 254 or 263 of 264 of the Act setting aside or canceling an assessment, meaning thereby wherever assessment order is cancelled or set aside by the appellate authority and the Assessment Officer is required to pass a fresh assessment order pursuant to the directions of the appellate authorities within the prescribed period under sub section (2A) of Section 153 of the Act. 21. But, wherever an assessment, reassessment or computation is to be made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under Sections 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 of the Act or in an order of any court in a proceedings otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, then no time limit is prescribed for passing such order by the Assessing Officer. 22. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we now proceed to examine as to whether it is the 27 provisions as contained in sub section (2A) of Section 153 of the Act which would be attracted to the present case as is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee or it would be sub section 3(ii) of Section 153 which would be applicable as per the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the revenue. 23. It would be noticed that assessment in the instant case was made on legal heir of late assessee who alone was declared to be the only legal heir by this court pursuant to dispute between different parties claiming to be legal heir of the assessee. Further assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer to give effect to the conclusion of the Hon’ble High Court in RFA NO. 310 of 2003 that the properties owned by the assessee were his self acquired property and not owned by him in his HUF status. The said order of assessment giving effect to the orders passed by this court were passed under Section 17A(4) of Wealth Tax Act/153(3) of the Income Tax Act and could be passed at any time and the provisions of sub section (1), (1A), (1B) and (2) of the said section, had no application to the facts of the instant case and, 28 therefore, the assessment proceedings can definitely be held to have been completed within the prescribed time frame. 24. The matter can be looked at from a different angle. It is not in dispute that till and so long conflicting claims of the legal heirs of the original assessee were pending adjudication before the courts, the issue of service of notice on the said L.Rs was open to debate and, therefore, could not have been concluded. As per the admitted case of the parties, all these questions regarding L.Rs and other controversies came to be set at knot only when CWP No. 1251 of 2005 was disposed of on 11.12.2006 and immediately thereafter the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 7.2.2007. 25. Notably, it was the assessee himself who had filed CWP No. 1251 of 2005 challenging therein the notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated 27.10.2005 for finalization of the assessment proceedings relating to various orders under the Wealth Tax Act and Income Tax Act. It is also pertinent to observe here that though the assessee made extensive pleadings before this 29 court, but, no where did he question the validity of the notice of hearing issued by the Assessing Officer and further did not even raise the plea that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was time barred. The assessee infact obtained an advantage from this court by having the proceedings stayed before the revenue department and, therefore, at this stage is now estopped from challenging and questioning the proceedings as being time barred especially when all these proceedings were initiated by the assessee himself. 26. To be fair to the learned counsel for the assessee, he in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1. Gulab Chand Moti Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 174 ITR 117 (MP); 2. Peeru Lal Mohan Lal Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2002) 257 ITR 198 (Raj); 3. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Jodhana Real Estate Development Corporation (P) Ltd; (2005) 273 ITR 195 (Raj); 4. Bhatia Motor Stores Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 288 ITR 31 (MP); 5. Bharti Engg. Corpn Vs. Union of India & ors (2008) 289 ITR 400 (P&H); 30 6. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd (2007) 290 ITR 543 (Ori); 7. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhan Textile (P) Ltd (2008) 300 ITR 176 (Del); 8. Manik Chand Burman Vs. Income Tax Officer (1998) 229 ITR 90 (All); 9. Spice Infotainment Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 247 CTR (Del) 500. 27. Notably, all the aforesaid judgments relate to the provision of sub section (2A) to Section153, which provision, as discussed above, is not at all applicable to the facts of the instant case. 28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the order passed by ITAT, holding that the assessment order passed on 7.2.2007 was within limitation period is factually and legally correct and the said order does not suffer form any irregularity, illegality or perversity. Accordingly, both the questions of law are answered against the assessee. 29. Resultantly, there are no merits in all these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. 31 Registry is directed to place the copy of this judgment in each connected files. (Mansoor Ahmad Mir), Chief Justice. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge. November 3, 2015 (sl) "