-1_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.820 OF 2008 WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 810 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax 12: Appellant v/s Mr.V.M. Shenai (deceased)Thr.LR’s Mr. R.V. Shenai : Respondent Mr. R.A. Vaishampayan Advocate for Appellant in ITXA 820/2008 Mr. P.S. Sahadevan Advocate for appellant in ITXA 810/2008 Ramnath Vijendra Shenai son and legal heir of Vijendra Manjunath Shenai respondent in both appeals Coram : Dr. S. Radhakrishnan S.J. Kathawalla, JJ. Date : 27.8.2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and MR. R.V. Shenai for the respondent who is the son of the deceased assessee. By both the above appeals the appellant is seeking to raise the following two substantial questions of law. a)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amended provisions of section 153(2) will be applicable and hence the assessment should -2_ have been completed within one year, ignoring the fact that the said amendment has come in to force w.e.f.1.6.2001 and the notice u/s 148 is issued on 28.3.2001 i.e., prior to the effective date, therefore the amended provisions will not be applicable? b) Whether the tribunal is justified in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the A.O. u/s 68 of the Act, the ground though raised not decided in view of cancellation of assessment on the ground of limitation? . We have perused the order of the Tribunal dt. 18.12.2006 wherein in para 3 the Tribunal has observed, "We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the language of section 153(2) after its amendment by the Finance Act of 2001 with effect from 1.6.2001 is amply clear, which provides that the reassessment shall be made before the expiry of one year from the end of Financial year in which the notice u/s 148 was served. The proviso thereof provides that where the notice u/s. 148 was served on or after 1.4.99 but before 1.4.2000 such reassessment may be made at any time up to 31.3.2002. In this case, notice u/s. 148 dt. 27.3.2001 was served on the assessee on 29.3.2001 and therefore the reassessment should have been completed before 31.3.3003. The reassessment in this case was completed on -3_ 28.2.2003 and therefore, the reassessment order was passed beyond the limitation period provided under the act. The language of section 153(2) r.w.proviso makes it clear that in case where notices u/s 148 have ben issued after 1.4.2000, the same will be covered by the amended provision of law, which reduces the period of reassessment from two to one year only. Accordingly, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the time limit available for concluding the reassessment in this case was clearly laid down by the amended provision of section 153(2) of the Act read with its proviso and therefore, the reassessment order is barred by limitation of time. In this view of the matter, we hold that no interference in the order of the CIT(A) is called for and in accordingly confirmed and the ground of appeal no.2 of the Revenue is dismissed." . We do not find any error or illegality in the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. There is absolutely no merit in the above appeal. The second question of law will not survive. Both the above Appeals therefore stand dismissed. (S.J. Kathawalla,J.) (Dr. S.Radhakrishnan,J.)