TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2000, under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, against the assessment order dt. 12th Feb., 1999, for asst. yr. 1995-96 was served on the assessee on 30th July, 2001, and, therefore, the said order was presumably not passed on the date it bears and it is barred by limitation." At the time of hearing, learned Authorised Representative submitted that he would press only the additional ground. 2. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n served or issued from the office of the authority who has passed the same. He strongly relied on CIT vs. Swarna Taneja (1990) 87 CTR (MP) 66 : (1990) 186 ITR 348 (MP), CIT vs. Shree Narayana Chandrika Trust (1995) 123 CTR (Ker) 233 : (1995) 212 ITR 456 (Ker), Cochin Plantation Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1997) 227 ITR 38 (Ker), Commr. of Agrl. IT vs. Kappumalai Estate (1998) 148 CTR (Ker) 565 : (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant material on record as well as decisions cited by the parties. Sub-s. (2) of s. 263 reads as under: "No order shall be made under sub-s. (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed." A plain reading of this provision would show that revisionary order under s. 263 would have been passed upto 31st March, 2001, becaus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder may be liable to change at the hands of the authority who may modify it, or even destroy it, before it is made known, based on subsequent information, thinking or change of opinion. To make the order complete and effective, it should be issued, so as to be beyond the control of the authority concerned, for any possible change or modification therein. This should be done within the prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
