Commissioner of Income Tax vs Smt. Shobha Rani Shah

Ajay Tewari, J.—This is an appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') against the order dated 28-2-2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') in ITA No. 3874/Delhi/2006 for the assessment year 1993-94 proposing following substantial questions of law:

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the Id. ITAT are perverse that there is no finding or direction in the order passed by Id. Additional District Judge, Rohtak?

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. ITAT has erred in law in holding that the assessments framed for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98 were void ah initio being beyond the period of limitation ignoring the provisions of Section 150(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. ITAT has misdirected itself in declaring the assessments for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98 as void ab initio, whereas the proceedings u/s 148 were initiated read with provisions of Section 150(1)?

Whether the initiation of proceedings u/s 148 read with Section 150(1) can be declared barred by limitation in view of the protection available to the revenue u/s 150(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?

The matter emanates from notices dated 31-3-2005 issued to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98 on the ground that there would be no period of limitation since the matter fell within the ambit of Section 150(1) of the Act and the consequent proceedings to frame assessment.

In appeal, the learned Commissioner held that the effective date for invoking Section 150(1) was the date of probate of the mother of the assessee in her favour, i.e., 30-11-2000 and consequently held that the notice for the year 1993-94 was hit by limitation but that the notices for the subsequent years and the consequent assessments were valid. The revenue carried the matter up in second appeal which was dismissed holding as follows:

... once I have held that no finding or direction has been given by the Hon''ble Judge in his order, the issue of notice u/s 148 are to be regulated by Section 149 of the Income Tax Act as in the order passed by the Hon''ble Judge there is no finding or direction to be basis for a notice within the extended period u/s 150(1).

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of K.M. Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(7), New Delhi, . We find that the said judgment is not applicable since it laid down that the extension of limitation brought about by the amendment to Section 150 Sub-section (1) would not give life to those cases for which action was time-barred on the date from which the amendment was brought into effect. In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly held that the grant of probate by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak had no consequence to the assessment placing reliance on the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwandas, Lakhimpur Kheri, . The Tribunal thus held that the order dated 30-11-2000 would not cause the limitation to extend u/s 150 of the Act.

In this view of the matter we are unable to hold that a substantial question of law arises.

The appeal is dismissed.