DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the expression 'date on which the ITO forwards the draft order under sub -s. (1) of s. 144B to the assessee' and ending with "the date on which the ITO receives the directions from the IAC", appearing in Expln. 1(iv) of s. 153 of the IT Act, 1961, the barred by time - was barred by time.

(2.) THE admitted position is that the AO had forwarded the draft assessment order to the Inspecting Assistant the Tribunal. of s. 153(3) of the Act, a period of 180 days could be added being the period between the date when ITO forwards the draft order to the IAC and the date when the directions of the IAC are received. In other words, a maximum period of 180 days is available to the IAC to issue directions to the AO under s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961.

(3.) PERIOD of 180 days, under Expln. 1(iv) to s. 153(3) of the Act. Therefore, on the day on which the IAC gave his direction, already barred by time since on that date more than 180 days had elapsed from the date on which the draft order was