Commissioner of Income Tax vs K.R. Chenni Krishna Chetty

K.A. Thanikkachalam, J.—At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this court u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :

"Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct and justified in law in holding that the expression ''an assessment to be made under sections 143(3)'' used in section 144B, is confined only to the assessment to be made u/s 143 and does not cover reassessments to be made u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act with the consequence that the procedure prescribed u/s 144B and extended time-limit provided in the Explanation to section 153 is not available to reassessments to be made u/s 147 ?"

The point for consideration is whether the expression "an assessment to be made u/s 143(3)" used in section 144B is confined only to the assessment to be made u/s 143 and does not cover reassessments to be made u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act with the consequence that the procedure prescribed u/s 144B and extended time-limit provided in the Explanation to section 153 is not available to reassessment to be made u/s 147.

A similar question came up for consideration before this court in T.C. Nos. 573 to 575 of 1983 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sundaram Spinning Mills and Others, , wherein by judgment dated April 23, 1996, this court held that the assessment made u/s 143 and the assessment made u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act are two different assessments and they are not one and the same. When the assessment is made in pursuance of an order u/s 144B, the extended time-limit as contemplated u/s 153 would not be available in making the assessment u/s 147. In view of the earlier decisions of this court cited supra, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.