COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BEAT ALL SPORTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following common question has been referred to this Court by the Tribunal under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the asst. yr. 1978-79 and 1979-80.

(2.) THE assessee derived income from the manufacture and sale of sports goods etc. Return for the asst. yr. 1978-79 was filed, declaring income of Rs. 4,65,800 and, for the next assessment year, income was declared at Rs. 4,82,610. Additions for more than Rs. 1,00,000 were proposed by the ITO in each of the two years. He, therefore, proceeded under S. 144B of the Act.

(3.) IN the next asst. yr. 1979-80, copy of the draft assessment order was forwarded to the assessee on 19th March, 1982. Objections were filed by the assessee, after seeking extension of time, on 30th March, 1982. The draft assessment order along with the objections was forwarded by the ITO to the IAC and the directions were received on 13th Sept., 1982. Assessment was made on an income of Rs. 7,09,276 on 18th Sept., 1982. The assessee challenged the assessments for both the years on the ground that the ITO wrongly followed the procedure laid down in S. 144B of the Act and, therefore, the extended period of limitation was not available for completing the assessment. It was claimed that the ITO had concurrent jurisdiction along with the IAC under S. 125A of the Act and, therefore, in the light of sub-s. (7) of S. 144B, the procedure laid down in S. 144B was not required to be followed.