2. itxal 2452-10.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2452 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune .. Appellant Vs Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal .. Respondent Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Appellant CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 13th JULY, 2011. P.C.: 1. Three questions of law raised by the Revenue in this Appeal which reads thus: A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in quashing the Block Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 158BD of the Income Tax Act on the ground that Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued beyond the time limit specified in the proviso to section 143(2)(ii) of the Act? B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in holding that the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) issued beyond time limit is legal in nature thus ignoring the provisions of section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which are clarificatory in nature as such the same have been retrospective effect as has been held in the case of CIT-I Ahmedabad Vs Gold Coin Health Food Pvt Ltd? 1 2. itxal 2452-10.doc C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT V/s. Hotel Blue Moon without appreciating the fact that the said decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Court without notice of the provision of section 292 BB of the I.T. Act which are clarificatory in nature and as such the same are having the retrospective effect? 2. As regards the first question (A) is concerned, learned counsel for Revenue fairly states that the said question is covered against the Revenue by the decision in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr Vs Hotel Blue Moon reported in (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC). In this view of the matter, the first question cannot be entertained. 3. As regards, questions (b) and (c) are concerned, the provisions of Section 292BB inserted by the Finance Act of 2008 with effect from 1st April 2008 would not apply to the proceedings in the present case (block period 1989-1990 to 1999-2000). In this view of the matter, questions (b) and (c) cannot be entertained. 4. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. [ A.A. SAYED, J ] [ J.P. DEVADHAR, J ] 2 2. itxal 2452-10.doc 3