TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), is directed against the order dated 04.4.2013 in ITA.No.2244/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial question of law : Whether, on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 26.3.2012 not on merits, but on the ground that it was communicated beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal considered the factual position and the letter written by the Assessing Officer enclosing the order passed under Section 263 of the Act and held that it was communicated well beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 263(2) of the Act. 5. The following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been placed on record. Therefore, inference has to be drawn against the Revenue that the impugned order was never communicated to the assessee. The provisions of Section 263(2) clearly state that order under Section 263(1) has to be passed within a period of two years from the end of financial year, in which, the order sought to be revised is passed. 6. Furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
