Shri Pravinkumar D. Vachhani, Baroda v. The ACIT., Circle-2,, Baroda

ITSSA 78/AHD/2006 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 7820516 RSA 2006
Assessee PAN AAUPV7701P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITSSA 78/AHD/2006
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Shri Pravinkumar D. Vachhani, Baroda
Respondent The ACIT., Circle-2,, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 31-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 10-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 10-03-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 21-04-2006
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.78/AHD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 DATE OF HEARING:10.3.10 DRAFTED:10.3.10 SHRI PRAVINKUMAR D VACHHANI SHRIKUNJ 11- GULABWADI OPP. AHIRWAD SOCIETY AKOTA VADODARA-390020 PAN NO.AAUPV7701P V/S . ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 ROM NO.209 2 ND FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA- 390007 (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI U.S.BHATTI AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI C.K.MISHRA SR-DR IT(SS)A NO.80/AHD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1/4/85 TO 26/6/96 SHRI MAGANBHAI D VACHHANI 15 CHAROTAR SOCIETY OLD PARDA ROAD VADODARA- PAN NO.AAUPV3924A V/S . ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 BARODA-390007 (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRIMUKUND BAKSHI AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI C.K.MISHRA SR-DR IT(SS)A NO.82/AHD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1/4/85 TO 26/6/96 SHRI K.D VACHHANI 16 J.P. NAGAR OPP-AVISKAR V/S . ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 2 COMPLEX OLD PARDA ROAD VADODARA- PAN NO.ABMPV6354Q ROOM NO.2 2 ND FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN RACE COURSE CIRCLE VADODARA-390007 (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI U.S. BHATI AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI C.K.MISHRA SR-DR IT(SS)A NO.86/AHD/2006 BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 SHRI VALLABHADAS D VACHHANI L/H SHRI PRASHANT D VACHHANI D-2 STERLING APARTMENT NR. ALKA RESTAURANT ALKAPURI-VADODARA- PAN NO.ABYPV5684N V/S . ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 ROOM NO.2 2 ND FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN RACE COURSE CIRCLE VADODARA-390007 (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- NONE RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI C.K.MISHRA SR-DR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE FOUR APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ARE ARISI NG OUT OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX CIRCLE-2 BARODA U/S.158BC R.W.S. 158BB R.W.S. 158BG R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE ALL DAT ED 22-03-2006 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 01-04-1986 TO 26-06-1996. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THESE GROUP APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEES IS AS REGARDS TO LIMITATION FOR FRAMING OF SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMEN TS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE SET ASIDE DE-NOVO B Y THE TRIBUNAL. FOR THIS THE ASSESSEES HAVE RAISED COMMON GROUNDS IN ALL THE APP EALS REGARDING LIMITATION IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 3 U/S.153(2A) OF THE ACT PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY THE GROUNDS BEING EXACTLY IDENTICALLY WORDED WE ARE REPRODUCING THE GROUND AS RAISED IN IT(SS)A NO.82/AHD/2006 IN THE CASE OF SHRI K.D.VACHHANI 1. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AS WELL AS IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGAL INASMUCH AS THE SAME IS BARRED BY LIMITATION U/S.15 3(2A) OF THE I.T. AC 1961. THE OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AT THE VERY I NITIAL STAGE OF AFRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN IGNORED/OVERLOOKED WITHOUT RECORDING ANY REASONS. TO SAVE THE VALUABLE TIME OF HONBLE TRIBU NAL AND ALSO TO ASCERTAIN CORRECT FACTS THE COMPLETE CASE RECORDS AS MAINTA INED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER C.I.T. BARODA AND REGISTRY ALONG WITH OTH ER NECESSARY MATERIAL MAY KINDLY HE CALLED FOR SO AS TO UNEARTH THE REAL TRU TH HAVING HEARING UPON THE GROUNDS UNDER APPEAL. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE P LEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE ACIT CIR-2 BARODA. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE T HAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 26-06-1996 ON THESE ASS ESSEES AND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH SEVERAL INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS VALUABLE AR TICLES INCLUDING CASH JEWELLERY AND OTHER VALUABLES WERE FOUND INVENTORIED AND SEI ZED. THE ORIGINAL BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED AND THE ASSESSEE CONTEST ED THESE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDERS SET ASIDE ALL THE ASSESSMENTS IN THIS GROUP OF CASES INCLUDING THAT OF THE ASSESSEE REMANDING THE ABOVE ISSUE FOR RE-CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE TRIBUNALS DIRECTION. THE TRIB UNAL SET ASIDE THE FOLLOWING APPEALS AS UNDER:- IT(SS)A NO. NAME OF ASSESSEE DATE OF ORD ER 141/AHD/1997 SHRI PRAVINKUMAR D VACHHANI 20/11/ 2003 144/AHD/1997 SHRI VALLABHADAS D VACHHANI L/HSHRI PRASHANT D VACHHANI -DO- 146/AHD/1997 SHRI K.D. VACHHANI -DO- 148/AHD/1997 SHRI MAGANBHAI D VACHHANI -DO- THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI U.S. BHATTI STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF SHRI P.D.VACHHANI AND PRASANT VACHHANI PASSED AN ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A. 141 & 144/AHD/1997 VIDE ORDERS DATED 31-08-2004. HE REFERRED TO ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGES 29 AND 3 3 WHEREIN COPIES OF ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF ITAT ARE ENCLOSED. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REFERRED TO NOTICE DATED 06-09-2004 ISSUED BY THE ACIT CIRCLE-2 BARODA IN IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 4 THE CASE OF P.D.VACHHANI FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ON 14-09-2004 THE RELEVANT COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IS ENCLOSED IN THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 38. SIMILAR ARE THE FACTS IN OTHER APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THESE CASES. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDERS VIDE DATED 31-03-2006 U/S 158BC R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT. UNDER THESE FACTS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BE & 153(2A) OF THE ACT. HE REFERRED TO PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 158BE AND 153(2A) OF THE ACT . HE STATED THAT THE SET ASIDE BLOCK AS SESSMENTS FRAMED BY THE AO IS BARRED BY LIMITATION INASMUCH AS THE TIME-LIMIT P RESCRIBED FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER CHAPTER-XIVB OF THE ACT IN SEC. 158BE OF THE ACT IS ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.158BC OF THE ACT. THIS PROV ISION DO NOT PROSCRIBED ANY OTHER TIME-LIMIT FOR PASSING DE NOVO ORDER IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE ORDER SETTING ASIDE TH E ORIGINAL BLOCK ASSESSMENT BY ANY AUTHORITY. HE ARG UED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON 25-06-1997 AND TH E SAME WAS SET ASIDE BY ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER 20-11-2003. ACCORDING TO HIM THE RE VENUE HAS RECEIVED THE TRIBUNALS ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ON 06-01-2 004. FOR THIS HE PLACED RELIANCE ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF CIT-I BA RODA (COPY OF LETTER DATED 18-12- 2006 IS ENCLOSED IN ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGE-6 ) WHEREIN THE MODE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER DATED 20-11-2006 IS MENTIONED BY POST. HE REFERRED TO THE LETTER OF ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD ENCLOSING COPY OF DISPA TCH REGISTER AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUE OF RECEIPT OF ITAT ORDER DATED 2 0.11.2003 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOW ENCLOSED AT ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGES 81 TO 83. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE URGED THAT THE SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORD ER DATED 31-03-2006 IS CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION AND URGED THE BENCH TO QUASH T HE ORDER. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR-DR SHRI C.K. MISH RA ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND STATED THAT THE CIT-DR-IV VIDE LETTER DATED 14-08-2008 HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ORDER IS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME -LIMIT. HE REFERRED TO THE LETTER AND STATED THAT IN VIEW OF A COPY OF LETTER DATED 14-02 -2008 BEARING NO.BRD/CIT- 1/ITAT/KDV/2007-08 OF CIT-I BARODA WHEREIN THE OFF ICE OF CIT HAS INFORMED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD OF THIS OFFICE VIZ. APPEAL REGISTER OF RELEVANT PERIOD IT IS IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 5 FOUND THAT TRUE COPY OF THE CAPTIONED ORDER OF ITAT WAS RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE ON 24- 03-2005 IN PERSON DIRECTLY FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ASST REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD. MOREOVER AS PER THE INWARD REGISTER OF THIS OFFICE NO SUCH APPELLATE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE ON 6-01-2004. HE STATED TH AT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LEARNED AR TRIED TO IMPRESS UPON HONBLE BENCH THAT AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF THE REGISTRY THE ITAT O RDER DATED 20-11-2003 WAS SERVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT-I BARODA ON 06-01- 2004 AND ACCORDINGLY THE SET ASIDE ORDER WAS TO BE REFRAMED ON OR BEFORE 31-03-2005 A GAINST THAT THE AO HAS PASSED SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 31-03-2006 WHI CH IS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AND THE SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-03-2006 IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVED TO BE QUASHED. HE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE THEN AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE U./S.142(1) ON 01-12-2004 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE COMPLIANCE BY FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 05-01-2005 AND THE DEPARTMENT CAN NOT TAKE PLEA THAT ITAT ORDER DATED 20-11-2003 WAS RECEIVED ONLY ON 24-03-2005. H E STATED THAT A COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT COMPLIED AT PAGE NO.83 OF T HE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK BEARS THE SEAL IMPRESSION OF THE OFFICE OF COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX-I BARODA DATED 06-01-2004 BUT THE PRESENT CIT-I BARODA HAS INFORMED THAT AS PER THE INWARD REGISTER OF THEIR OFFICE NO SUCH APPELLATE ORDER WA S RECEIVED ON 06-01-2004. A COPY OF SAID ORDER WAS RECEIVED ON 24-03-2005 IN PERSON DIRECTLY FROM THE OFFICE OF ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD. DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING I HAVE BROUGHT IN THE NOTICE OF HONBLE BENCH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153(2A) OF THE ACT AND AS PER THIS PROVISION IF AN ASSESSMENT IS SET ASIDE OR CANCELL ED BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER OF A COMMISSIONER (A) U/S.250 OR THE ORDER TRIBUNAL U/S. 254 FRESH ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCI AL YEAR IN WHICH ORDER U/S.254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CONCERNED CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COM MISSIONER. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE COPY OF TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 20-11-2003 HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CONCERNED COMMISSIONER ON 24-03-2005 AS CERTIFIED B Y HIM. THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ON 31-03-2006 WHICH IS DONE A S PER THE LAW. THE LD. SR-DR ARGUED THAT HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN TH E CASE OF CIT V. ITAT & ANR. (2000) 245 ITR 659 (DEL) HELD THAT PERIOD OF LIMI TATION FOR MAKING APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 256(1) BY THE COMMISSIONER COMMENCES FROM S ERVICE OF APPELLATE ORDER ON THE CONCERNED CIT WHO HAS JURISDICTION IN VIEW OF THIS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. HE FURTHER STA TED THE FACT THAT THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACTED ON SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS BY OBTAINING A COPY OF IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 6 ITATS ORDER DATED 20-11-2003 DIRECTLY FROM THE ASS ESSEE WHICH HAS NO ROLE FOR ASCERTAINING THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF FRESH ASSESSM ENT IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT STARTS FROM THE RECEIPT OF ITATS ORDER BY THE CONCERNED CIT AND IN THE PRESENT CASE ITATS ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY CONCERNED CIT ONLY ON 24-03-2005. THE LD. SR-DR FINALLY STATED TH AT BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 158BH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153(2A) IS APPARENTLY APPL ICABLE WHERE TIME LIMIT FOR FRAMING FRESH BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN VIEW OF SET ASIDE ORDER I S PRESCRIBED. THUS THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BE & 153 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE AR AND THE SAME D ESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS. FIRST OF ALL IT IS TO BE DECIDED WHEN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 20-11-2003 WAS SERVED IN THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I BARO DA. REVENUES MAIN CONTENTION WAS THAT THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF TRI BUNALS ORDER BY CIT-I BARODA COMPILED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE-83 OF THE PAPER BO OK BEARS THE SEAL IMPRESSION OF THE OFFICE OF CIT-I BARODA DATED 06-01-2004 BUT AS PER THE INWARD REGISTER OF CIT-I BARODA NO SUCH APPELLATE ORDER WAS RECEIVED ON 06-0 1-2004 BUT THE COPY OF SAID TRIBUNALS ORDER WAS RECEIVED ONLY ON 24-03-2005 IN PERSON DIRECTLY FROM THE OFFICE OF AR ITAT AHMEDABAD. BUT THE REVENUE HAS NOT FIL ED ANY EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OR NO SUCH REQUEST WAS MADE FOR FILING OF ANY EVIDENCE. HOWEVER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM CIT-I BAROD A BY ASSESSEE UNDER RTI CLEARLY STATES THAT THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20-11-2003 WAS RECEIVED BY POST. THIS INFORMATION WAS SUPPLIED U/S.7 OF RIGHT TO INFORMAT ION ACT VIDE LETTER DATED 18-12- 2006 BY CIT-I BARODA AND THE RELEVANT LETTER READS AS UNDER:- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX I AAYAKAR BHAVAN RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA NO. BRD/CIT/HQ-1/RTI/PDV/2006-07 DATE: 18-12-2006 TO SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR DEVRAJ VACHHANI 11 GULABWADI OPP. ASHIRWAD SOCIETY AKOTA BARODA. SUB: FURNISHING OF INFORMATION U/S.7 OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT- REF: YOUR APPLICATION DATED 13-11-2006 RECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON 22- 11-2006 IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 7 THE DESIRED INFORMATION IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. PARTICULARS REFERENCES. COPY OF INWARD REGISTER IN RESPECT OF ITAT ORDERS RECEIVED ANNEXURE A DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01-01-2004 TO 31-01-2004. (PAGES 1 TO 3) MODE OF RECEIPT OF COPY OF ORDER DATED 20-11-2003 BY POST IN ITA NO.IT(SS)A NO.141 144 146 & 148/AHD/97 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FOR 01-04-1987-88 TO 26-06-19 96 COPIES OF ORDERS GIVING EFFECT TO THE AFORESAID IT ATS ANNEXURE B ORDER FOR BLOCK PERIOD IN RESPECT OF THE FOUR ASSE SSEES (PAGES 1 TO 87) MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION. BASIS ON WHICH THE ORDERS WERE PASSED AS GIVE N IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS COPIES OF INITIAL FORMAL NOTICES U/S.143(2) AND 14 2(1) ANNEXURE C FOR MAKING DE NOVO ORDERS CONSEQUENT TO THE (PA GES 1 TO 21) AFORESAID ITATS ORDER IN THE FOUR CASES MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION. SD/- (K.K.TRIPATHI) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I BARODA ENCL: A/A COPY FOR INFORMATION TO: 1. SHRI KRISHNADAS DAS DEVERAJ VACHHANI SINCE TH ERE WAS NO OBJECTION IN 2. SHRI PRASHANT VACHHANI L/H OF LATE R ESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.11 DATED VALLABHDAS D VACHHANI 29-11-2006 R.W. NOTICE DATED 05-12-2006 3. SHRI MAGANLAL DEVRAJ VACHHANI IT IS PRESUME D THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO OFFER IN ACC ORDANCE WITH SECTION 11 OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. HENCE THE FURNISH- ING OF THIS INFORMATION. SD/- K.K.T RIPATHI (K.K.TRIPATHI) CIT-I BARODA THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF LETTER DATED 07-06 -2006 RECEIVED FROM AR ITAT AHMEDABAD IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE SAID ORDER OF TRI BUNAL (IT(SS)A NO.141 144 146 & 148/AHD/1997 DATED 20-11-2003) WITH THE FOLLO WING ENCLOSURES:- (1) CERTIFIED COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DISP ATCH (STOCK) REGISTER (2) CERTIFIED COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIPS. (3) CERTIFIED COPY OF LETTER NO.BRD/ADDL.CIT/BR-CIT RANGE-2 BARODA ADDRESSED TO THE REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD REGARD ING NON-RECEIPT OF THE ITATS ORDER IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 8 THE RELEVANT LETTER OF THE AR DATED 07.06.2006 ITA T AHMEDABAD READS AS UNDER:- INCOME TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL 2 ND FLOOR NEPTUNE TOWER NR. NEHRUBRIDGE CORNER ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD : 380009 DATE : 07-06-2006 FROM : ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLANT TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD TO : KRISHNADAS DEVRAJBHAI VACHHANI 16 J.P.NAGAR OLD PADRA ROAD VADODARS. REF: IT(SS)A NOS.141 144 146 AND 148/AHD./1997 BLOCK PERIOD A.Y. 1987-88 TO 26-6-96 IN R ESPECT FILED ON IT(SS) A NO.82/AHD/06. SIR WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR LETTER DATED NIL I HAVE TO I NFORM YOU AS UNDER: 1. THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 20-11-93 IN ABOVE CASE WERE SENT TO CIT BARODA BY RPAD ON 18- 12-03 AND RECEIVED BY CIT-I BARODA ON 06-01-2004. (COPY OF DISPATCH REGISTER & ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ENCLOSED). 2. THEREAFTER THIS OFFICE SUPPLIED THE CERTIFIED CO PIES OF TRIBUNAL ORDER TO ONE SHRI V. SUKESH ON REQUESTED LETTER OF SHRI N.K.CHAND ADDL. CIT RANGE -2 BARODA DATED 24-03-05 (COPY ENCLOSED). YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/-ILLEGIBLE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. ALONG WITH THIS LETTER THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED COPY OF STOCK/DISPATCH REGISTER BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE ORDER WAS DISPATCH VIDE RPAD ON 18-12-2003 (WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY STAMP OF OFFICE OF POSTING DEPARTMENT OF POSTS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-I BARODA ON 06-1- 2004). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCES IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 20-11-2003 WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF CIT-I BAR ODA ON 06-01-2004 AND THE REVENUE COULD NOT NEGATE THIS FACT BY ANY DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY ON 31-03-2006. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS NOW WE HAVE T O EXAMINE WHETHER THE SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS FRAMED BY THE AO VIDE ORDERS DATE D 31-03-2006 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OR NOT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECT ION 158BE AND 153(2A) OF THE ACT. IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 9 6. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 158BE AS APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASES ON THE FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.132 OF THE ACT AFTER 30 TH DAY OF JUNE 1995 BUT BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF JAN. 1997 I.E. ON 26-06- 1996 AND THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED U/S.158 BC OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 158BD OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SEC. 1 58BE READS AS UNDER:- 158BE (1) THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BC SHALL BE P ASSED (A) WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WH ICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR FOR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A AS THE CASE MAY BE WAS EXECUTED IN C ASES WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DO CUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED AFTER THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE 1995 BUT BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF JANUARY 1997; (B) WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR FOR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A AS THE CASE MAY BE WAS EXECUTED IN C ASES WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DO CUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF JANUARY 1997. (2) . (NOT APPLICABLE) EXPLANATION I (NOT APPLICABLE) EXPLANATION 2 (NOT APPLICABLE) AS PER SEC.158BE(1) THE TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION O F BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BC HAS PRESCRIBED AND THE PERIOD FOR COMPLET ION BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR SEARCHED MADE UP TO 31 ST DEC. 1997 IS ONE YEAR FROM THE MONTH IN WHICH SEAR CH WAS INITIATED U/S.132 OF THE ACT. IN A MATTER WHERE A BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE BY ANY OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES OR COURTS THE ISS UE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE TIME-LIMIT SET BY SEC. 158BE OF THE ACT WOULD STILL APPLY OR WHETHER THE EXTENDED TIME-LIMIT AVAILABLE FOR SET ASIDE ASSESSM ENTS U/S.153(2A) WOULD BE AVAILED BY REVENUE SO AS TO GET A LONGER TIME-LIMI T. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN THE EXTENDED TIME-LIMIT FOR SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSM ENT WILL NOT BE A RESTRAINED IN CASE THE ENTIRE BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN SET ASID E IT IS BECAUSE THE TIME-LIMIT WILL NOT APPLY TO THE APPELLATE ORDERS AND THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF HAS PASSED THE ORDER OF REMAND AFTER ONE YEAR WHICH WAS THE PERIO D ALLOWED FOR COMPLETION OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR ALSO MAKE NO D IFFERENCE. NO DOUBT THERE IS TIME-LIMIT FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT AS DISTINCT FROM N ORMAL ASSESSMENT THE PROVISION U/S.153(2A) PRESCRIBING AN EXTENDED TIME-LIMIT WILL APPLY TO THE SET ASIDE BLOCK IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 10 ASSESSMENT WHERE ORIGINAL BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS SET ASIDE AND FRESH BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS TO BE MADE. HERE WE ARE IN FULL AGR EEMENT WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE PROVISION OF SEC.153(2A) OF THE A CT WILL APPLY. THIS VIEW OF OURS IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF W.C. SHAW P. LTD. V. ACIT (2005) 276 ITR 153 (AT) (KOL) WHEREIN HELD AS UNDE R:- 15 ON A READING SECTION 158BE OF THE ACT IT IS SE EN THAT SECTION 158BE ONLY SPECIFIES THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER MUST COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. THE LIMITATION SPECIFIED IN SECTION 158 BE IS THE LIMITATION FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND IT IS NOT A LIMITATION FOR MAKING A FRESH ASSESSMENT IN PURSU ANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR 254 OR 263 OR 264 SETTING ASIDE OR C ANCELING THE ASSESSMENT. IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS TO TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U NDER CHAPTER XIV-B FOR COMPLETION OF FRESH ASSESSMENTS IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR 254 OR 264 OF THE ACT. AT THE SAME TIME SECTION 158BH PROVIDES THAT SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN CHAPTER XIV-B ALL OTHER P ROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER T HAT CHAPTER I.E. CHAPTER XIV-B. THEREFORE TO FIND OUT THE TIME LIMIT FOR CO MPLETING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUAN CE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250/254/263 OR 264 WE HAVE TO REFER TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS PROVIDED ELSEWHERE IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT. AT THIS S TAGE IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT NEW CHAPTER XIV-B CONTAINING SECTIONS 158B TO 158BH WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT 1995 WITH EFFECT FROM JULY 1 1 995 LAYING DOWN SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR SEARCH CASES WH ERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCU MENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A ON OR AFTER 1 ST JULY 1995. THE SCOPE AND EFFECT OF CHAPTER XIV-B (CONTAINING SECTION 158B TO SECTION 158BH) ORIGINALLY INSERTED WITH EFFECT FROM JULY 1 1995 WAS ELABORA TED IN PARAGRAPHS 39.1 TO 39.3 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL CIRCULAR NO.717 DATED AUGU ST 14 1995 (SEE [1995] 215 ITR (ST.) 70). UNDER THE ITEM (F) OF PARA. 39.3 OF THE SAID CIRCULAR IT IS CLARIFIED AS UNDER (PAGE 99): BESIDES ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL AP PLY TO THE ASSESSMENTS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS CHAPTER. IN OTHER WORDS THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO REGULAR INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS OBLIGATION FOR P AYMENT OF SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX UNDER SECTION 140A BEFORE FILING THE RETURN SHOWING UNDISCLOSED INCOME RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ETC. SHALL BE APPLICABLE. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT THE MATERS WHICH HAVE NOT B EEN OTHERWISE PROVIDED UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVIS IONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT SAV E AND EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN CHAPTER XIV-B ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL MUTATIS MUTANDIS BE APPLIED TO THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THE I NTENTION OF THE LEGISLATION TO APPLY ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT TO THE PRO CEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER XIV- B IS THUS VERY MUCH CLEAR HOWEVER THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE ACT. SIN CE IN CHAPTER XIV-B NO PROVISION IS PROVIDED FOR TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250/254/263 OR 264 WE HAVE TO REFER TO IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 11 THE TIME-LIMIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 153(2A) WHICH I S APPLICABLE TO THE FRESH ASSESSMENTS MADE IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SEC TION 250 OR 254 OR 263 OR 264 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE WE HAVE TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE PRESENT FRESH ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS W ITHIN THE TIME-LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 153(2A) OF THE ACT. ON READING SUB-SECTION (2A) OF SECTION 153 OF THE A CT SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2001 WITH EFFECT FROM JUNE 1 2001 IT IS SEEN THAT FRESH ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 2 50 OR SECTION 254 OR SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH TH E ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER O R COMMISSIONER OR AS THE CASE MAY BE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SEC TION 264 IS PASSED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE TRIBUNALS ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 DATED JUNE 1 2000 WAS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER WITHIN THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 2000-01 AND AS SUCH THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PURSUANCE OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 DATED JUNE 1 2000 WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BEFORE THE END OF MARCH 21 2002 AS PER THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION(2A) OF SECTION 153 WHICH IS MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLIED TO THE BLOC K ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS CLARIFIED BY THE BOARD THAT THE PROVISIONS RELAT ING TO REGULAR INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE ASSESSMENTS TO BE MADE UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THAT CHAPTER XI V-B OF THE ACT. 7. SUB-SECTION 2A OF SEC. 153 TALKS ABOUT THE TIM E-LIMIT FOR ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE IN CONSEQUENCE OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND TH IS WILL APPLY TO BLOCK ASSESSMENTS ALSO. NOW WE HAVE TO SEE WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL CAN SET ASIDE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OR NOT. THIS HAS BEEN ANSWERED BY HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LAKSHMI JEWELLARY V. DCIT (2001) 252 ITR 712 (MAD) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- THE NEXT SUBMISSION MADE WAS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN FULL EFFECT TO THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 158B E(1)(A). THE SUBMISSION WAS THAT THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF SEARCH HAVING ELAPSED LONG BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL ADDITION NO AUTHORITY TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THEREBY ENABLING HIM TO EXERCISE POWERS IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMEN T LONG AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR SPECIFIED IN SECTION 158BE(1 )(A). SECTION 158BE(1)(A) READS THUS: 158BE.(1) THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BC SHALL BE PASSED - (A) WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WH ICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORIZATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR FOR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A AS THE CASE MAY BE WAS EXECUTED IN C ASES WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DO CUMENTS OR ANY IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 12 ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED AFTER THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE 1995 BUT BEFORE THE 1SDT DAY OF JANUARY 1997. THIS SECTION ONLY SPECIFIES THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. IT DOES NOT COME IN THE WA Y OF THE APPELLANT AUTHORITIES WHO FIND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE DE FECTIVE FOR ANY REASON REMANDING THE MATER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MA KING A PROPER ORDER IN RELATION TO THE MATERS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THE MA TTER IS REMANDED BY THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY. THE LIMITATION OF ONE YEAR IS ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND IT IS NOT A LIMITATION WHICH FETTERS THE DISCRETION OF THE APPELLANT FORUM. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE AND THERE IS NONE REGARDING THE EXTEN T OF THE POWER OF THE APPELLANT AUTHORITY THAT IT HAS THE POWER NOT ONLY TO UPHOLD OR SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT ALSO HAS THE POWER NOT ONLY TO UPHOLD OR SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT ALSO HAS THE POWER TO MODIFY O R REMIT. THE APEX COURT IN MORE THAN ONE DECISION UNDER OTH ER PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT INCLUDING THOSE IN CHAPTER XX-C HA S HELD THAT THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED FOR MAKING THE INITIAL ORDER IS FOR THE MAKING OF THAT ORDER ALONE AND IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF LIMITING THE POWER OF THE H IGHER FORUM WHICH IS EMPOWERED TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INITIAL ORDER AND PREVENTING IT FROM EXERCISING ITS POWERS. (DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION OF I.T. V. POORAN MALL AND SONS [1974] 96 ITR 390 (SC) AND APPROPRIATE AUTHORI TY V. VARSHABEN BHARATBHAI SHAH [2001] 248 ITR 342 WHEREIN THE SUP REME COURT REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY). THE LIMIT ATION PRESCRIBED IS TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KEPT IN THE DARK AND KEPT GUESSING AS TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND ALSO TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R PAYS PROMPT ATTENTION TO THE RECORD BEFORE HIM AND MAKES UP HIS MIND AS TO T HE NATURE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. THE SPECIFICATION OF ONE YEAR IS NOT TO PROVIDE AN IMMU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY FURTHER ORDER BEING MADE IN THE EVENT THE ASSES SMENT ORDER MADE IS FOUND FOR ANY REASON DEFECTIVE BY THE HIGHER FORUM. THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE WAS WELL WITHIN ITS POWERS IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF CERTAI N ITEMS AFTER GIVING A COPY OF THE REPORT THAT IT HAD RELIED ON TO THE ASSESSE E. THERE WAS NO BREACH OF SECTION 158BE IN MAKING THAT ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIG H COURT TRIBUNAL IS WITHIN THE POWER IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-DO T HE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS DE NOVO. THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED U/S. 158BE(1) I S FOR MAKING OF THE ORIGINAL BLOCK ASSESSMENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT DOES NOT F ATAL THE DISCRETION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES OR COURT(S) TO REMAND A CASE TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO PASS A FRESH ORDER IN RELATION TO CERTAIN MATTERS OR DE NOVO IN ENTIRETY. ACCORDINGLY THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS PRESCRIBED U/S.158BE(1) IS NOT APPLIC ABLE TO FRESH BLOCK ASSESSMENT TO BE FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE TO THE REMAND ORDER. ONCE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO SET ASIDE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS THE SET ASIDE IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 13 BLOCK ASSESSMENTS IN TERMS OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER HAS TO BE FRAMED ACCORDING TO THE PROVISION OF SEC. 153(2A) OF THE ACT. 8. NOW WE HAVE TO READ THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 153(2 A) OF THE ACT WHICH IS AS UNDER:- TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENTS AND REASSE SSMENTS. 153 (1) (1A) . .. (2A) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SEC TIONS (1)[(1A) (1B)] AND (2) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 1971 AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR AN ORDER O F FRESH ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 OR SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 SETTING ASIDE OR CANCELLING AN ASSESSM ENT MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 IS RECEI VED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR AS THE CASE MAY BE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE CHIEF C OMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER: PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 250 OR SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR AS TH E CASE MAY BE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 1999 BUT BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2000 SUCH AN ORDER OF FRESH ASSESSMENT MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME UP TO THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH 2000:] [ PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVIN G BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR AS THE CASE MAY BE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE C OMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2005 THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SEC TION SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS ONE YEAR THE WORDS NINE MON THS HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED:] [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 254 IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER OR AS THE CASE MAY BE THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED BY THE C OMMISSIONER ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL 2006 AND DURING THE COURSE OF THE P ROCEEDINGS FOR THE FRESH ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME A REFERENCE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 92CA- (I) WAS MADE BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF JUNE 2007 BUT AN ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 92CA HAS NOT BEEN MADE BEFORE SUCH DATE; OR (II) IS MADE ON OR AFTER THE1ST DAY OF JUNE 2007 THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL NOTWITHST ANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE SECOND PROVISO HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS ONE YEAR THE WORDS TWENTY ONE MONTHS HAD BEEN SUBSTITUTED.] IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 14 THE TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF SET ASIDE ASSESSME NT HAS BEEN STIPULATED U/S.153(2A) OF THE ACT AS ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND TH E TIME-LIMIT IS TO BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER BY THE CHIEF COMM ISSIONER OR THE COMMISSIONER. SUB-SEC. 2A OF SEC. 153 IS PRESCRIBING THE TIME-LIM IT FOR ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE IN CONSEQUENCE OF ORDERS IN APPEAL OR REVISION TO ONE YEAR AND IT COVERED ALL THE ORDERS WHERE SUCH FRESH ASSESSMENT ARE TO BE MADE AND FOR WHICH SUCH ORDERS ARE LISTED BELOW:- SECTION 250 ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL SECTION 254 ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SECTION 263 REVISIONAL ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WHERE SUCH ORDERS ARE PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE. SECTION 264 OTHER REVISIONAL ORDERS OF THE COMMIS SIONER. TIME LIMIT OF ONE YEAR WILL BE RECKONED WITH EFFECT FROM FOLLOWING DATES- (I) DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS RECEIVED BY THE COMM ISSIONER OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER IN THE CASE OF APPELLATE ORDERS EITHER FROM THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR FROM THE TRIBUNAL. (II) DATE ON WHICH THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED IN T HE CASES OF ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER EITHER UNDER SECTION 263 OR 264. IN SEARCH & SEIZURE CASES WHERE BLOCK ASSESSMENT I S SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL AND FRESH BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAME IS TO BE COMPLETED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRIBUNALS ORDER WAS RECEI VED BY THE OFFICE OF CIT AND TIME- LIMIT OF COMPLETION OF SUCH SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSM ENT HAS TO BE RECKONED IN VIEW OF SEC. 153(2A) OF THE ACT AS ONE YEAR FROM THE EN D OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN SET AS IDE. THE ORIGINAL BLOCK ASSESSMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASES WERE SET ASIDE DE NOVO BY ITAT AHMEDABAD IN RESPECT OF IT(SS)A NO.141 144 146 & 148/AHD/1997 VIDE ORDER DATED 20-11-2003 AND THE SET ASIDE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED IN THESE CASES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDERS DATED 31-03-2006 U/S.158BB(1) R .W.S. 158BC R.W.S. 158BG R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 20-11-2 003 (SUPRA) WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF CIT-I BARODA ON 06-01-2004 AND THIS FACT IS FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE CIT-1 BARODA UNDER RTI AND INFORMATION IS THAT THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY POST. THE LIMITATION FOR FRAM ING OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS IN THESE APPEALS IN VIEW SEC.153(2A) OF THE ACT STARTS FROM 06-01-2004 AND THE ASSESSING IT(SS)A NO.78 80 82 & 86/AHD/2006 B.P. 1/4/86 TO 26/6/96 VACHHANI GROUPS V. ACIT CIR-2 BRD PAGE 15 OFFICER HAS TO COMPLETE THESE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WIT HIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR OF 2003-04 I.E. THE ORDER RECEIVED B Y CIT-I BARODA ON 06-01-2004. THE LIMITATION FOR COMPLETING THESE BLOCK ASSESSMEN TS WERE AS ON 31-03-2005 AND THESE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED BY THE AO ON 31-03-2006 WHICH ARE CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ALL THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS FRAMED IN THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION HENCE QUASHED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/03/2010 SD/- SD/- (N.S.SAINI) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD DATED : 31/03/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD