TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. Secretary and 2 ors [2016 (10) TMI 778 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held to the contrary. Petitioner has refuted this argument by asserting that one of the factors which weighed with the Gujrat High Court in the case of Shlibhadra (supra) was that the order was sought to be personally served upon the Assessee but the Assessee refused to accept the order, and apart therefrom, in an appeal filed by that Assessee to the Supreme Court leave has been granted. In our considered opinion, the petition must succeed. Apart from the fact that the judgment passed in Shlibhadra (supra) could be distinguished (since in that case the Assessee had refused service), what we find in the present case is that the petitioner had communicated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Ajay Tewari, J. ( Oral ) 1. This petition has been filed against the order of the Settlement Commission rejecting an application for settlement filed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that no proceedings were pending on the day. 2. Brief facts are that while the assessment proceedings were pending the petitioner sent a mail to the Assessing Officer on 26.12.2018 indicating that assessment proceedings should be deferred because the petitioner intended to move the Settlement Commission. On 27.12.2018 the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment, passed the order and despatched it through post. Admittedly, before it was received o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) was issued seeking certain information. Subsequently, notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 30.09.2010 and the limitation to serve that notice in that case was upto 30.09.2010. The issue before this Court was whether the date of the notice would be taken as per its service or as per its issuance. It was in those circumstances that the Court had held that for the purposes of computing the limitation of 30 days for service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act the determinative date could be the date of issue and not the date of service. In our view, this judgment is not applicable. Because there the question which had to be determined was whether the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer on 26.12.2018 itself that it was intending to move an application before the Settlement Commission. 8. Counsel for the revenue asserts that the Assessing Officer was working against a time constraint since limitation was to expire on 31.12.2018. 9. Be that as it may, in the totality of circumstances, we are inclined to follow the view of the Bombay High Court passed in Yashovardhan Birla (supra) wherein it was held as follows :- 12. In any event, the Rule of Law requires like cases to be decided alike. Therefore, the law of precedents. This Court in Income Tax Settlement Commission (supra) has declared that for purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. An assessment would be pend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
