9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1041 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - service of order barred by limitation - Tribunal held that it was communicated well beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 263(2) - HELD THAT - Tribunal took note of the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Government Wood Workshop Vs. State of Kerala 1987 (1) TMI 451 - KERALA HIGH COURT wherein it was held that the Authority cannot pass an order and keep it on his file and should not on his own will and pleasure communicate the same to the person aggrieved well beyond the period of limitation stating that the date on which he passed the order would be the relevant date. It is not enough that the Authority should pass the order but it should be communicated to the aggrieved individual in a manner known to law and acknowledgment card should be obtained and the Departmental Representative who appeared before the Tribunal could not controvert the submissions of the authorized representative of the assessee. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Issues:
1. Appeal filed by Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Substantial question of law regarding the revision order under Section 263 of the Act being barred by limitation. 3. Tribunal setting aside the order under Section 263 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on the ground of being communicated beyond the limitation period. Analysis: 1. The High Court heard the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was directed against the order dated 04.4.2013 for the assessment year 2008-09. The substantial question of law raised was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the revision order under Section 263 was barred by limitation. 2. The High Court pointed out that there was no substantial question of law in the appeal. The Tribunal had set aside the order under Section 263 not on merits but due to being communicated beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal found that the order was communicated well beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 263(2) of the Act. 3. The Tribunal's findings indicated that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax was forwarded to the assessee on 26.11.2012, well beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence to show that the order was dispatched on time. Citing the provisions of Section 263(2), the Tribunal inferred that the order was never properly communicated to the assessee within the specified timeframe. 4. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to a decision of the Kerala High Court, emphasizing the importance of timely communication of orders to the concerned parties. The Tribunal found that the order should not only be passed but also properly communicated within the legal framework. The Departmental Representative failed to counter the submissions made by the authorized representative of the assessee. 5. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The substantial question of law raised was answered against the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order under Section 263 due to being communicated beyond the limitation period.
|
