W.T.As. Nos.439/LB to 441/LB of 2001, decided on 20th May, 2002. Versus W.T.As. Nos.439/LB to 441/LB of 2001, decided on 20th May, 2002.
ORDER
MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) .‑ These three appeals have been filed by the department for the assessment years 1992‑93 to 1994‑95 against an order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority to agitate the cancellation of assessments.
2. The brief facts of the case are that no suo motu returns were for the years under consideration. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 14(2) for filing of the returns which was served on 23‑2‑1997. In response to notices under sections 16(2) and 16(4) the assessee pleaded before the Assessing Officer that the assessments were time‑barred. This plea was not accepted by the Assessing Officer for various reasons given in the assessment order. The assessments were consequently finalized at total wealth of Rs.2,116,600 each for the three years under consideration. The assessee being aggrieved went in appeal before the learned first appellate authority who cancelled the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer as being time barred.
3. The learned D.R. has submitted that the learned CIT (A) was not justified to cancel the assessments as limitation under section 17(1)(A)(b) is 4 years from the end of assessment year in which the net wealth was first assessable. As such notice in this case was issued on 17‑2‑1997 and wealth first was assessable during the assessment year 1998‑99 and then 4 years from the end of this assessment year expires during the assessment year 2002‑2003. As such assessment in this case was completed within stipulated period. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, has supported the order of the learned First Appellate Authority for the reasons stated therein.
4. After hearing the parties and going through the orders passed by the authorities below we find the learned First Appellate Authority, cancelled the assessments with the following observations:‑
"Perusal of assessment order reveals that notice under section 14(2) was served on 23‑2‑1997 but assessment was framed' on 23‑12‑1999. According to section 17A(2)(b) the same should have been made before 30‑6‑1998. Assessment order is hit by the mischief of section 17A(2)(b) as elaborated above. It has further been contended that rightly so that the assessment is related to the preceding years and not current year, therefore, issue of notice under section 17 was a prerequisite which was not fulfilled and only notice under section 14(2) was issued. On this score and also following ITAT's judgment in W.T.A. No.1107/LB of 1999 the order is not maintainable, therefore, hereby cancelled."
After considerations the observations made above we find the order passed by the learned First Appellate Authority is unexceptionable and, therefore, no interference is made. The appeals filed by the Department are dismissed being devoid of merits.
C.MA./M.A.K./425/Tax(Trib.) Appeals dismissed.