9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in IT(SS) A Nos.32 to 37/ CTK/2018 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 to 2015-16. The questions sought to be urged by the Revenue for consideration by this Court read as under: "A) Whether the ITAT was correct in observing that the assessment order dated 30th December, 2016 under S. 144 read with S.153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 received by the assessee on 9th January, 2017 could be said to be barred by limitation, when there was no indication to show that the Assessing Officer did not pass the said order on 30th December, 2016? B) Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that when there are two divergent views of different High Courts, one favouring the assessee should be followed, totall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is concerned, the Respondent Assessee could produce before the ITAT the envelope in which the assessment order was despatched by the AO by speed post and also produce a copy of the tracking record of speed post which showed that the order was in fact despatched only on 7th January, 2017 although it was dated 30th December, 2016. Relying on decisions in CIT v. BJN Hotels Ltd. (2017) 79 taxmann.com 336 (Kar); K. Joseph v. Agricultural Income Tax Officer (1991) 190 ITR 464 (Ker) and Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax Officer v. Kappurmalai Estate 234 ITR 187 (Ker), the ITAT came to the conclusion that the order of assessment had to be made on or before 31st December, 2016 and since it was despatched only on 7th January, 2017 and del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taka High Court, held as under: "That the revenue is neither able to point out from the records that the assessment orders were dispatched on 27.4.2007 nor produced the dispatched register to establish that the orders were complete and effective i.e. it was issued, so as to be beyond the control of the authority concerned within the period of limitation i.e. 29.4.2007. Admittedly, the assessment orders were served on the assessee on 30.4.2007, hence, the assessment orders passed were barred by limitation." 8. In the same judgment in BJN Hotels Ltd. (supra), the Karnataka High Court noted: "An identical issue was before this Court in ITA No.832/2008 (D.D. 14.10.2014 in the case of Maharaja Shopping Complex vs DCIT. This courts followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
