9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. The order u/s 143 (3) was passed on 16-11-2011. Therefore the order u/s. 263 is barred by limitation,- because though the date of order is purported to have been passed on 30.03.2014, but the same assessee has not been received by the assessee as yet even, after the assessee has requested to supply the same vide letter dtd 14.10.2014. This appeal is being filed only on the basis of Zerox copy obtained from ITO's office. 3. That it is settled law that an order of an authority cannot be said to be passed unless it is in someway pronounced or published or party affected have the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed and kept in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue, it cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. That other grounds if any will urged at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee pressed only on the additional ground which is as under :- ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That the communication is a condition precedent and an order takes effect only on communication. Since the order u/s. 263 was not issued to the assessee within the period of limitation, the same is barred by limitation as has been decided by Supreme Court of India, High Courts and co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal. List of case laws enclosed separately. PRAYER Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the present case being covered by the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, ld. AR argued on the additional ground only and submitted that the order passed by the CIT u/s.263 was not issued to the assessee within the period of limitation and the same is barred by limitation and prayed for allowing the appeal. 8. Contra, ld. DR supported the orders of CIT and opposed to the additional ground of assessee. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Ld. DR submitted that there cannot be any instance of delaying the order and the order passed by CIT u/s.263 of the Act dated 30.03.2014 was within the limitation period and is not bad in law, whereas ld. AR submitted that the order passed by CIT was dispatched on 5th A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Coordinate Bench has erroneously laid down the law on this issue if the word 'made' is given the meaning served then the section itself would become unworkable and it would make all assessment orders made on the last day illegal. In the circumstances, respectfully following the principles and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 477, we differ from the decision taken by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Durga Condev Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as also the decision of Shanti Lal Godawat & Ors. Vs. ACIT (2009) 126 TTJ (Jodh) 135. Here, we may specifically mention that in the case of Durga Condev Pvt. Ltd. (supra), though one of us is co signatory in that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
