Judgment ( 1. ) THE decision rendered in this appeal shall govern disposal of other connected appeals being I. T. A. Nos. 48, 49 and 57 of 2000, as all these four appeals arise out of common order passed by the Tribunal. ( 2. ) THIS is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) under Section 260a of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated May 24, 2000, passed by the Tribunal (the ITAT) in I. T. A. Nos. 391 to 394/ Ind of 1998 in relation to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1994-95. The other appeals arise out of different assessment years. ( 3. ) AT the outset, we may mention that this appeal was admitted for final hearing on the following substantial questions of law : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in annulling the assessment on the ground that the assessment was completed much after the expiry of the limitation period for framing the assessment ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the period for completion of audit cannot be extended without recording the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in the order sheet even though the provisions of Section 142 (2c) nowhere provided for recording of such satisfaction and there was sufficient material on record to the effect that the assessee was not co-operating in the completion of audit ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the letter dated May 6, 1997, written by the Assessing Officer to the auditor directing him to complete the audit in due time did not extend the time for completion of audit within the meaning of Section 142 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?" ( 4. ) THE facts in brief that led to disposal of this case out of which this appeal arises need mention infra. ( 5. ) THE appellants of these appeals constitute what we call "group of business". Their premises were raided by the income-tax sleuths by taking recourse to proceedings under Section 132 of the Act between May 14, 1994 and May 17, 1994. ( 5. ) THE appellants of these appeals constitute what we call "group of business". Their premises were raided by the income-tax sleuths by taking recourse to proceedings under Section 132 of the Act between May 14, 1994 and May 17, 1994. Since none of the assessees had filed returns till the date of search and hence, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on September 8, 1994 for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1994-95. Returns were then filed on different dates by these assessees. They were filed on September 30, 1994, February 2, 1996 and March 14, 1997. ( 6. ) ON February 26, 1997 the Assessing Officer sought permission from the Commissioner as contemplated under Section 142 (2a) of the Act to get the accounts of these assessees audited by an accountant as defined in the Explanation appended below to Section 288 (2) as nominated by the Commissioner. This permission was accorded by the Commissioner to appoint one M/s. Jethani and Company on March 11, 1997, for getting the audit done of these assessees. As a consequence, the auditor submitted his report on July 8, 1997. The Assessing Officer then completed the assessment on November 7, 1997. ( 7. ) THE assessee (respondent) then challenged the validity/legality of the assessment before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in appeal contending in substance that it is barred by limitation by virtue of Section 153 (3), Explanation 1 (iii ). According to the assessee in terms of this Section, the limitation for completion of assessment was only up to June 9, 1997, whereas it was completed on November 7, 1997, and hence bad in law being completed/done after the statutory period of limitation applicable to the facts of this case. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by his order dated March 31, 1998, dismissed the appeal and overruled the objection raised by the assessee. However, in an appeal filed by the assessee to the Tribunal, the appeal was allowed by the Tribunal by passing the impugned order. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the assessment order made on November 7, 1997 was barred by limitation and hence, it was annulled. It is against this order of the Tribunal, the Revenue, i. e. , the Commissioner of Income-tax, has come up in this appeal. As observed supra, this appeal was admitted for final hearing on the questions of law framed supra. It is against this order of the Tribunal, the Revenue, i. e. , the Commissioner of Income-tax, has come up in this appeal. As observed supra, this appeal was admitted for final hearing on the questions of law framed supra. ( 8. ) HEARD Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned Counsel for the Revenue. None for the assessee. ( 9. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, we find no merit in these appeals. In other words, we too are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be correct though we slightly differ with their reasoning but not the conclusion so arrived at. ( 10. ) THE short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is, whether the assessment order dated November 7, 1997, passed by Mr. Pyarelal--Assistant Income-tax Commissioner (Investigation) Circle-I, Indore, is within time, or not. ( 11. ) TO decide this question, the following sections are relevant. These Sections are Sections 142 (2a), 153 (2) and Section 153 (3), Explanation 1 (iii) as it stood at the relevant time : "section 142. (2a)--If, at any stage of the proceedings before him, the Assessing Officer, having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below Sub-section (2) of Section 288, nominated by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the Assessing Officer may require. Section 153. (2)--No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under Section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under Section 148 was served;. . . Section 153. Section 153. (2)--No order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made under Section 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the notice under Section 148 was served;. . . Section 153. (3) Explanation 1 (iii)-- the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited under Sub-section (2a) of Section 142 and ending with the date on which the assessee furnishes a report of such audit under that sub-section, or. . . Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid time or period, the period of limitation referred to in Sub-sections (1), (2) and (2a) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly. " ( 12. ) SECTION 142 (2a) empowers the Assessing Officer to get the accounts of the assessee audited by an accountant as per the procedure prescribed under Sub-section (2a) read with Section 288 (2), Explanation if he feels that the accounts of the assessee are complex in nature. Then comes Section 153. This section provides a time-limit for completion of assessment/ reassessment. In a case where reassessment is to be done under Section 147 then Sub-section (2) of Section 153 provides for a limitation of two years to be counted from the end of the financial year in which notice under Section 148 was served on the assessee. Then comes Clause (iii) of Explanation 1 to Section 153 read with its proviso. This Explanation provides that while calculating the period of limitation of two years under Section 153 (2), the time spent in obtaining the audit report as directed by the Assessing Officer under Section 142 (2a) shall be excluded, i. e. , the time spent from the date on which the Assessing Officer directed the assessee to get his accounts audited under Section 142 (2a) and ending with the date on which the assessee furnished the report of such audit. Then comes proviso appended to this Explanation which in terms extends the period by 60 days if it is noticed that after excluding the period as provided under Sub-section (2), it is less than 60 days. Then comes proviso appended to this Explanation which in terms extends the period by 60 days if it is noticed that after excluding the period as provided under Sub-section (2), it is less than 60 days. This extension of 60 days is granted by a deeming fiction. ( 13. ) NOW when we take note of the relevant dates of this case in the context of the requirements of the three sections referred supra, then we find that the assessment should have been completed in the first place up to March 31, 1997, in terms of Section 153 (2) ibid. It is for the reason that the notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee on September 8, 1994. In this view, the last date of the financial year as provided under Section 153 (2) would be March 31, 1995, and as a consequence, the last date for completing the assessment would be two years, i. e. , on or up to March 31, 1997. Since, in this case, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 142 (2a) against the assessee and hence the provisions of Section 153, Explanation 1 (iii) read with its proviso will get attracted. As observed supra, on March 11, 1997, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to get the accounts audited and accordingly, the assessee submitted the report on July 8, 1997. In this view, the time spent from March 11, 1997 to July 8, 1997, i. e. , (119 days) shall be excluded or one can say added in two years while calculating the period provided in Section 153 (2 ). ( 14. ) IN this case, the assessment was made on November 7, 1997. In terms of Section 153 (2), the last date for completion of assessment was up to March 31, 1997, whereas in terms of Section 153 (3), Explanation 1 (iii), one can add 119 days after March 31, 1997, by way of extension of period, i. e. , the time spent in obtaining the audit report. ( 15. ) IT is clear that even after adding 119 days after March 31, 1997, the date of assessment could be at best somewhere by the end of July/august, 1997, but not beyond November 7, 1997, whereas in this case, the assessment was made on November 7, 1997. ( 15. ) IT is clear that even after adding 119 days after March 31, 1997, the date of assessment could be at best somewhere by the end of July/august, 1997, but not beyond November 7, 1997, whereas in this case, the assessment was made on November 7, 1997. So even after applying the benefit of extension of period provided in Explanation 1 (iii) or even taking benefit of the proviso adding 60 days, the extended period does not reach up to November 7, 1997. In order to bring the assessment order in time, the Assessing Officer should have completed the assessment either up to March 31, 1997, or in any case within the extended period as per Section 153 (3), Explanation 1 (iii), read with the proviso within 119 days to be computed from March 31, 1997. Since, this was not done and hence the assessment made on November 7,1997, by the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be within the limitation as per the scheme of three sections referred supra. It is, therefore, rightly held by the Tribunal to be barred by limitation. ( 16. ) IN view of what we have held supra and if our interpretation and/or finding is eventually accepted by the Revenue or upheld by the Supreme Court in an appeal if filed by the Revenue, we are constrained to observe that the Assessing Officer in passing the assessment order did not discharge his duties to the best of his knowledge, acumen and dedication thereby putting the Revenue to a huge tax loss. He being a very senior Assessing Officer should have known the law of limitation which governs the case in question. There is valid reason that a senior officer of the status of the Assistant Commissioner must be quite conversant with the time-limit within which he has to complete the assessment of this nature. Indeed, when he could pass the order on November 7, 1997, why he could not do so before July, 1997. Why he did not do ? Is a million dollar question and he alone can answer this question. The fact remains that due to his inaction (whether deliberate or otherwise), the Revenue has been put to loss to a large extent. Why he did not do ? Is a million dollar question and he alone can answer this question. The fact remains that due to his inaction (whether deliberate or otherwise), the Revenue has been put to loss to a large extent. It is now for the Department to decide departmentally as to whether any action is called for and if so, what kind of action is permissible under the Service Rules for such lapses and/or inaction against such officer. We leave this matter at this stage for the Department to decide. ( 17. ) THE appeal thus fails and is dismissed. ( 18. ) NO costs.