JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a partnership firm and an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the respondent to issue Ext.P1 order of assessment pursuant to Ext.P4 order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.576/Coch/2022, for the assessment year 2017-18. It is the case of the petitioner that, considering the date of Ext.P4 order, Ext.P1 order of assessment is beyond time. Specific reference is made to the provisions of Sub Section(5) of Section 153 of the Act, in support of this contention.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, where an assessment is to be completed pursuant to a direction issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Act, the assessment has to be completed within a period of three months from the end of the month in which the order is received by the Authorities. It is submitted that Ext.P4 order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was on

14.09.2022 and therefore, the time limit for completion of assessment would, at best, extend to 31.12.2022. It is submitted that since Ext.P1 order was issued only on 15.03.2024, the said order has to be treated as non est in the eye of law.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department would submit that a reading of Ext.P4 order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal will indicate that certain documents had to be verified by the Assessing Authority before passing the order of assessment and in such a case, the Second Proviso to Section 153(5) of the Act would apply, in which case, time limit applicable would be twelve months from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Tribunal was issued. It is submitted that since the order of the Tribunal was issued on 14.09.2022, the Assessing Authority had time till 31.03.2024 to complete the assessment (one year from 31.03.2023). It is submitted that the main part of Sub Section (5) of Section 153 applies to a case where no verification is required to be done by Assessing Authority and only an order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal is to be made by the Assessing Authority. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, places reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Readers Digest Book and Home Entertaining (India) Pvt. Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 19(1), New Delhi & Others [MANU/DE/0578/2024] to contend that the time limit under Sub Section (3) of Section 153 of the Act would have to be calculated from the end of month in which the order of the Tribunal was received by the respondents and if such a calculation is made, even if the period of 12 months were to apply, Ext.P1 order of assessment is beyond time .

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with Ext.P1. The first question to be considered is whether the order of the Tribunal requires the Assessing Authority to make any further verification, before passing fresh orders, as directed by the Tribunal or whether the Assessing Authority was merely required to pass an order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal . The operative portion of Ext.P4 order reads thus:- ‘’5.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. In the present case, the addition has been made on account of deposit of Rs.1,10,49,000/- during demonetization period into assessee’s bank account. The assessee has taken a plea that the said amount has been taken by the assessee from its debtors and deposited to bank account. To verify the same, the AO has issued a notice to the debtors namely Mascom Steel India Pvt. Ltd., Surabhi Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Suprime Steel Industries. The assessee filed confirmation letter only from Suprime Steel Indust