TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto force. Since the order is admittedly served within a period of two weeks this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not barred by limitation. - Decided against assessee. Violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) - report called for by the Commissioner was not confronted to the assessee and that the financial transaction of the assessee with the managing director which was found in the assessment order of the managing director, was not admitted - Held that:- Though the assessment order relied upon by the Commissioner is that of the managing trustee, the ld.representative now claims that no admission is made in respect of cash deposit of ₹ 38,81,545. As rightly submitted by the ld.representative for the assessee, an opportunity shall be given to the assessee to explain the circumstances under which the deposit was made in SBI to the extent of ₹ 38,81,545. Since such an opportunity was not given, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered. Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I.T.A No. 152/Coch/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2014 - Shri N.R.S. Ganesan an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the Commissioner called for report from ITO, Wd.1, Kottayam Range who is the assessing officer for the assessee. According to the ld.representative, the report said to be filed by the ITO, Wd.1, Kottayam was not furnished to the assessee. However, by referring to the assessment order of Shri Kurien Joseph, the managing trustee of the assessee, it was found that the managing trustee of the assessee deposited ₹ 38,81,545 in State Bank of India. According to the ld.representative, though the Commissioner claims that the managing trustee admitted before the assessing officer that the above amount of ₹ 38,81,545 was the income of the trust, the assessee was not given any opportunity to rebut the allegations. The ld.representative further submitted that Shri Kurien Jospeh never admitted that it is the income of the trust. It is not known wherefrom the Commissioner got this information. According to the ld.representative, if at all the Commissioner has any material then, he ought to have put it to the assessee before placing reliance on the same. The ld.representative placed his reliance on various case laws including the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner within the period of six months it cannot be held to be violative of section 12AA of the Act. In the case before the Madras High Court, the application was dated 28-01-2009 and the order was passed on 31-07-2009. The Madras High Court found that there was no violation. 7. We have also carefully gone through the judgments relied upon by the ld.representative for the assessee in Government Wood Works vs State of Kerala 69 STC 62 (Ker), copy of which is available at page 15 of the paper book. This judgment of the Kerala High Court was affirmed by the very same Kerala High Court in M/s Jaffiri Kareem vs Agricultural Income-tax Officer 1998 (2) KLT 39, copy of which is available at page 10 of the paper book. A similar view was taken by another bench of the Kerala High Court in K Joseph N Jacob (supra). In all these cases, the language employed by the legislature is that no order of assessment shall be made after the expiry of the specified period . A similar language is employed by the legislature while providing period of limitation for making assessment u/s 143(3) / 147 in section 153 of the Act. In section 263 of the Income-tax Act, the Parliament clearly says ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered opinion that in view of the language employed by the Parliament consciously, wherever there is prohibition from passing the order after the specified period, the order shall go out of the control of the officer who has passed the order before the specified period. However, wherever, the order shall be passed is mentioned, then, it shall be served on the assessee within a reasonable period so as to enable the concerned person to challenge the same in case the concerned person felt aggrieved. Once the order is served on concerned person, the effect of the order will come into force. Since the order is admittedly served within a period of two weeks, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the principle laid down by the Kerala High Court in Government Wood Works (supra); M/s Jaffiri Kareem (supra) in the context of language employed in the Agricultural Income-tax Act, is not applicable to the facts of this case. 9. In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not barred by limitation. 10. Now coming to the merit of the appeal, the only contention of the assessee is that the report ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
