TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner on 31.03.2016. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the petitioner beyond the last date of limitation prescribed and as such, is barred by time. - Decided in favour of assessee - WRIT TAX No. - 822 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 28-8-2017 - Pankaj Mithal And Umesh Chandra Tripathi, JJ. For the Appellant : Suyash Agarwal, Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal For the Respondent : C.S.C.,Gaurav Mahajan ORDER Heard Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent-Department. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifferent things and therefore, if the notice has been dispatched on 31.03.2016, it is within time. There is no dispute to the fact that u/s 149 of the Act, the maximum time limit for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. In the present case, the relevant assessment year is 2009-10. Therefore, the end of the said relevant assessment year would be 31.03.2010. Learned counsel for the parties agree that 31.03.2016 as mentioned above was the last date for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. There is no dispute even to the fact that the notice was signed on 31.03.2016 by the Assessing Officer. The dispute is only as to whether the notice so signed on 31.03.2016 was actually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said notice would be deemed to be 01.04.2016 only. In these circumstances, the date of dispatch mentioned in the dispatch register maintained by the Department would not be the date of the issuance of the said notice. It does not prove the date or time on which the notice was actually posted. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 only makes a distinction between issue of notice and service of notice under the Act and points out that Section 149 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation for the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, meaning thereby that the date of issuance of the notice would be relevant and not the date of service of the not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
