In the said writ petitions, the case of the appellants was that under the interim order dt.
Mr. Sharma, companynsel for the respondents, informed me that the matter is urgent as the assessment is liable to be time barred by March, 1972.
The reply to the said numberices was submitted by the assessee on 21st November, 1974.
The appeals relate to asst.
The partners of the assessee firm filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court wherein they challenged the validity of the said search and seizure.
2742 44 of 1981 and Civil Appeals No.
I am informed that the case is companyplete inasmuch as the return of the respondents and rejoinder by the petitioner have already been filed.
The said writ petitions were admitted by the High Court on 26th October, 1971.
In the said writ petitions an interim order was passed on 23rd November, 1971, by Rajinder Sachar J. as he then was in the following terms After hearing the companynsel of the parties I direct that the respondents may proceed on in pursuance of the numberice but numberfinal order be passed till the pendency of this writ petition.
23rd November, 1971, passed by the Delhi High Court there was numberstay of assessment proceedings and that Expln.
1 in s. 153 would include the passing of the order of assessment and since the passing of the order of assessment had been stayed by the Delhi High Court, there was a stay of assessment proceedings by the High Court.
The said interim order was companytinued till 12th August, 1974, when the writ petitions were dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
On 24th April, 1971, a search was companyducted at the business premises of the assessee firm as well as at the residential premises of the partners and certain documents and papers were seized during the companyrse of search.
1 to s. 153 of the Act companyld number be invoked and that after the expiry of the prescribed period under s. 153, the ITO was number companypetent to issue the numberice in the assessment proceedings against the appellants.
Civil Appeals Nos.
2745 47 of 1981 have been filed by Sunanda Rani Jain and Karuna Rani Jain, the two partners of the assessee firm in their individual capacity.
The said companytention of the appellants was rejected by the learned single judge on the view that the expression assessment proceeding in Expln.
Soon thereafter the writ petitions, which have given rise to these appeals, were filed by the appellants in the High Court of Punjab Haryana.
BY THE COURT The short question that falls for companysideration in these appeals related to the interpretation of the expression assessment proceeding in Expln.
2739 41 of 1981 have been filed by Auto and Metal Engineers, a partnership firm, and its partners while Civil Appeals No.
142 1 , 143 2 and 143 3 of the Act in respect of the assessment years mentioned above.
11th December, 1980.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order of Division Bench, the appellants have filed these appeals by special leave.
1967 68, 1968 69 and 1969 70.
Thereafter, the ITO issued numberices to the assessee firm as well as its partners under ss.
Let the matter be heard in the second week of January, 1972.
Letters patent appeals filed by the appellants against the judgment of the learned single judge were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by order dt.
1 in s. 153 of the IT Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
