I.T.O vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCAITION

O/TAXAP/1020/2006 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 1020 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1021 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1022 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1023 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1024 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1025 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1026 of 2006 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1028 of 2006

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? Page 1 of 4

O/TAXAP/1020/2006 JUDGMENT ================================================================ I.T.O....Appellant(s) Versus BARODA CRICKET ASSOCAITION....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

Date : 25/11/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of these appeals, the Revenue has challenged the common judgment and order dated 28.3.2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘A’ in ITA No. 3736/Ahd/2003 for AY 1998-99, ITA No. 3735/Ahd/ 2003 for AY 1997-98, ITA No. 3734/Ahd/2003 for AY 1996-97, ITA No. 3733/Ahd/2003 for AY 1995-96, ITA No. 3732/Ahd/2003, for AY 1994-95, ITA No. 3731/Ahd/2003 for AY 1993-94, ITA No. 3730/Ahd/ 2003 for AY 1992-93, ITA No. 3729/Ahd/2003 for AY 1991-92. 2. While admitting all these appeals, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law: Page 2 of 4

O/TAXAP/1020/2006 JUDGMENT (i) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law and on facts in holding that the assessment orders are passed in violation of Limitation as provided in proviso of Section 143(2) of the IT Act ? (ii) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law and on facts in holding that in the reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act, notice is required to be served to the assessee within 12 months u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act,1961 ? “ 3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties in all these appeals and considered the submissions. 4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant in all these appeals has pointed out that the proviso to section 148(1) inserted by the Parliament on 28.2.2006 in the IT Act, provides that notice issued after 12 months but before the completion of assessment/reassessment in respect of the return u/s. 148 furnished during the period from 1.10.1991 to 30.9.2005 shall be deemed to be a valid notice. In that view of the matter, the matter is required to be considered in light of the amended provisions. Ld. Advocate for the respondent has submitted that in view of Page 3 of 4

O/TAXAP/1020/2006 JUDGMENT the amendment, the matter is required to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. Hence, in view of the amended provisions, we are of the opinion that the matter is required to be re-considered by both the authorities after considering the factual matrix of the matter and amended provisions. 5. In that view of the matter, both the orders passed by CIT(A) as well as ITAT are quashed and set aside. The matters are remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. Therefore, as the matters are remitted back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration, the questions are not answered. All these Tax Appeals are disposed of accordingly. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) mandora Page 4 of 4