9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2007. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasion and Ld. Departmental Representative(DR), was present for the appellant Revenue. In the absence of any appearance by the assessee, the appeal is being disposed of ex parte qua the assessee, after hearing Ld. DR for the Revenue on merits in terms of Rule 24 of the Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, Rules, 1963. 3. The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 41 days. The Revenue filed petition for condonation of delay. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue and having regard to the reasons given in the petition for condonation of delay. We condone the delay and admit the appeal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the AY 1998-99 on the likewise assessment u/s 144/254. That order too the ACIT AO had made by on the same date as this impugned order on 02.07.2007. Thus it is obvious that when the proceedings u/s 143(3)/254 were taken up for the AY 1998-99, that the ACIT AO realized from the records that there was also to be made assessment u/s 143(3)/254 for this AY 1995-96 and also 1996-97; but by then already barred by limitation u/s 153(2A). 5.1.3. The ACIT AO has tried to take refuge u/s 153(3)(ii) - but those provisions are in totally different context, being in the context of consequential effect. This is not the case here. And, in the appeal submissions the AR has relied on the following decision - which deals on the issue: [2005] 93 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , provisions of section 153(3) would not be applicable - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, fresh assessment order of Assessing Officer dated 28-3-2003 in pursuance of Tribunal's order dated 1-6- 2000 would be barred by limitation - Held, yes 5.1.4. Thus, the impugned assessment order had already been barred by limitation. 6. Conclusion: The Appeal succeeds." Thus, in this instant case, the assessment order was to be made by 31.03.2005. Whereas the impugned assessment order was made 2 years later - on 02.07.2007. Even the notice for hearing was issued after the period for making the order of assessment had already been time-barred - being notice dated 12.04.2007. We note that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a reasoned order considering all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
