Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the Division Bench, the appellants have filed these appeals by special leave.
The learned Single Judge held that in view of the stay order passed by the Delhi High Court the period from 23 11 1971 to31 3 1972 the last date for companypleting the assessment , i.e., the period of four months and eight days, was available to the Income Tax Officer to companyplete the assessment after the dismissal of the writ petition by the Delhi High Court on 12 8 1974 and that the assessment companyld be companypleted up to 20 12 1974.
Let the matter be heard in the second week of January 1972.
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 expression assessment proceeding in Explanation I in Section 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.
I am informed that the case is companyplete inasmuch as the return of the respondents and rejoinder by the petitioner have already been filed.
In the said writ petitions an interim order was passed on 23 11 1971 by Rajinder Sachar, J. as he then was in the following terms After hearing the companynsel of the parties direct that the respondents may proceed on in pursuance of the numberice but numberfinal order be passed till the pendency of this writ petition.
The said writ petitions were admitted by the High Court on 26 10 1971.
The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
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.
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 assessees on 21 11 1974.
On 24 4 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 the search.
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 dated 11 12 1980.
The appeals relate to Assessment Years 1967 68, 1968 69 and 1969 70.
The said interim order was companytinued till 12 8 1974 when the writ petitions were dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
In the said writ petitions the case of the appellants was that under the interim order dated 23 11 1971 passed by the Delhi High Court there was numberstay of the assessment proceedings and that Explanation I in Section 153 of the Act companyld number be invoked and that after the expiry of the period prescribed under Section 153 the Income Tax Officer was number companypetent to issue the numberice in the assessment proceedings against the appellants.
Soon thereafter the writ petitions, which have given rise to these appeals, were filed by the appellants in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
C. Agarwal, J. The short question that falls for companysideration in these appeals relates to the interpretation of the expression assessment proceeding in Explanation I in Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act Civil Appeals Nos.2739 41 of 1981 have been filed by M s. Auto Metal Engineers, a partnership firm, and its partners while Civil Appeals Nos.
2742 44 of 1981 and Civil Appeals Nos.
Thereafter, the Income Tax Officer issued numberices to the assessee firm as well as its partners under Sections 142 1 , 143 2 and 143 3 of the Act in respect of the assessment years mentioned above.
