TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A), 19, Kolkata s order dated 12-11-2018 passed in case no. CIT(A), Kolkata-19/10413/2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short Act ). Heard both the learned parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee s sole substantive plea during the course of hearing is that the impugned regular re-assessment allegedly framed on 3103-2016 itself deserves to be quashed since it was served only on 18-08-2016 i.e after 140 days. Learned Counsel invited our attention to the CIT(A) s discussion regarding the instant legal issue as follows:- 4. Grounds No. 1 is in respect of the limitation u/s 147. The appellant has contended that the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s appeal ITA No.l194/Ko1/2017. Its sole substantive grounds pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding the assessment in issue to be framed beyond the stipulated limitation period vide detailed discussion: 2. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellant had preferred this appeal with the following grounds of appeal. I, That the impugned assessment order dated 3// 03/2014 passed by the Ld. DCIT and served on the appellant on 28/04/2014 is lime barred, illegal and void ab initio. 2. That the impugned assessment order passed u/ s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. DCIT on 31/03/2014 is against law and facts of the case and against the established princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding to assessee, order was passed after 3110312014 and the order has got time barred and it is illegal. In support of his proposition, appellant has cited the following judgments/decisions. I. Slate ofAndhra Pradesh vs. M Ramakrishtaiah Co.- 93 STC 40; (SC). 2. ('IT vs. Shri Narayani Chandrika Trust 212 ITR 456 (Ker) 3. Government of Wood Works vs. Stale of Kerala - 69 STC 62 (SC) 4. Mofatlal Industries Ltd. Another vs. ('TO Others - 101 STC 461 (ITAT; Kolkata). 5. Shanti Lal Ghodawat ors. Vs, ACIT- (2009) 7261TJ (Jd) 135 (ITAT. Jodhpur) 6. CIT vs. MA. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand Sons - 2008 TMI- 3777 (P HHC) 7. M/s. Dilip Mohan Seth vs. no - ITA No. 2110//Kol/2009 (ITAT, Ko ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the assessee, Under the circumstances, 1 do not have any option hullo accept assessee 's submissions in this regard. I have also perused the assessment records and I am separately communicating my observations to Pr. CIT17, in this matter. In view of the facts narrated above and the case laws cited by assessee, if is held that order passed by the A.O was barred by limitation as if appears to have been passed after 31/03/2014, Hence, assessment u/s 143(3) dated 31/03/2014 is quashed. As the assessment order is quashed, merits of the case have not been looked into. 3. Learned Senior Departmental Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We shall now deal with the other references and applications under Section 256(2) which have been heard along with these references. the questions referred for the year 1978-79 are similar, except that one further question has been referred at the instance of the assessee. namely, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 is not barred hy limitation . We shall deal with this question which arises in Income-tax References Nos. 81 and 82 of 1986 relating to this year. The Income-tax Officer made an order of assessment on January 12, 1981, holding that income accruing, 10 the assessee-trust fr0111 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept in the file, because such order 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 period, though the actual service of the order may he beyond that period 37. The Tribunal has not referred 10 this decision though it is relevant. We feel that the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal in the manner in which it should have been, pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
