LAWS(P&H)-2010-4-107

DAVINDER MEHRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Decided On April 07, 2010
DAVINDER MEHRA Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two appeals bearing ITA No.291 of 2007 and 372 of 2009 as the issue raised in both the appeals is common. For the purposes of this order, facts are being taken from ITA No.291 of 2007. The instant appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for brevity 'the Act') is directed against order dated 31.1.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in ITA No.29 (ASR)/2004 in respect of block assessment period 1.4.1979 to 22.7.1979. When the appeal was admitted, the following substantive questions of law were framed for determination of this Court: I) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that while deciding the appeal against the assessment order passed under Section 158 BC, the Tribunal was not competent to go into the satisfaction recorded under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act prior to initiation of search ? II)Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the proviso to Section 143(2) did not apply to the Block Assessment framed under Section 158 BC of the Income Tax Act.

(2.) THE assessee-appellant has filed an application asserting that question No. II is now covered by a judgement of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and another v. M/s Hotel Blue Moon(2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC). It has been claimed that the above question of law has been settled in the aforesaid judgement in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has opined that service of notice on all the assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act has to be within the prescribed period of time for framing block assessment under Chapter XIV B of the Act.

(3.) MS. N.P.K.Singh, Counsel for the Revenue has not been able to successfully controvert the submission made by the counsel for the assessee and has conceded that question No.2 is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.