9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1386 - AT - Income TaxAssessment orders liable to be annulled being passed beyond the period of limitation - HELD THAT - Admittedly, a perusal of the assessment orders in the present case clearly shows that DNCR, which is to be clearly hand written on the assessment orders is absent in the present case. It is also an admitted fact that DNCR original which has been produced by CIT DR does contain the entry in respect of the date of assessment order. DNCR also does mention the date of the assessment order as 30.12.2016. DNCR does not contain the date of the entry made in respect of the assessment order. It only mentions the date of the assessment order as 30.12.2016. Therefore, we are of the view that DNCR register does not help the case of the revenue. CIT DR has placed before us the file of the JCIT, wherein, he has granted the approval u/s.153D in respect of the assessment order on 30.12.2016. Again, this does not help the revenue insofar as it is only in respect of the approval u/s.153D from the JCIT. It does not prove that the order has been passed on 30.12.2016. A perusal of the order of M/s. Nidan 2018 (5) TMI 1024 - ITAT CUTTACK clearly shows that this issue has been considered by the Tribunal, wherein, it is held that the assessment order therein is barred by limitation, as upheld by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court 2022 (7) TMI 1444 - ORISSA HIGH COURT - The assessee, herein, is a partner in M/s. Nidan (supra). Thus, the facts in the case of M/s. Nidan (supra) most specifically in respect of period of limitation would apply paripasu in respect of the assessee also. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the assessment orders passed in assessee s case purported to have been passed on 30.12.2016 is barred by limitation and, therefore, quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the assessment order dispatch. 2. Validity of the assessment order based on the dispatch date. 3. Legislative interpretation of "made" vs. "served" in the context of assessment orders. 4. Precedents and judicial interpretations regarding the dispatch and service of assessment orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Timeliness of the Assessment Order Dispatch: The primary issue revolves around whether the assessment order was dispatched within the statutory time limit. The assessee argued that the assessment order, purportedly passed on 30.12.2016, was dispatched only on 07.01.2019. This delay in dispatch was supported by consignment tracking records and the absence of order sheet entries indicating timely dispatch or approval from the JCIT. 2. Validity of the Assessment Order Based on the Dispatch Date: The assessee contended that the assessment order was time-barred, referencing a previous decision in the case of M/s. Nidan, where the Tribunal held that orders dispatched beyond the statutory period were invalid. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the assessment order must be communicated within the limitation period to be valid. 3. Legislative Interpretation of "Made" vs. "Served": The Revenue argued that the term "made" in Section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act implies that the assessment order should be completed by the specified date, not necessarily served. They cited various judicial precedents supporting this interpretation, including decisions from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Gauhati High Court, which held that the service of the order beyond the limitation period does not invalidate it, as long as the order was made within the prescribed time. 4. Precedents and Judicial Interpretations: The Revenue relied on several precedents, including the cases of Kodicasu Appalaswamy & Suryanarayana vs. CIT, Ramanand Agarwalla vs. CIT, and K.U. Srinivasa Rao vs. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, to argue that the assessment order's validity is based on the date it was made, not the date it was served. They also referenced the decision of the Cuttack ITAT in the case of Sophia Study Circle, which supported the view that "made" does not equate to "served." However, the Tribunal noted that the DNCR (Demand and Collection Register) did not contain the date of the entry made in respect of the assessment order, only the date of the assessment order itself. This lack of clarity did not support the Revenue's case. The Tribunal also referred to the approval file from the JCIT, which only indicated approval on 30.12.2016 but did not confirm the actual passing of the order on that date. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessment orders were barred by limitation, following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Nidan. The assessment orders purported to have been passed on 30.12.2016 were quashed due to the delay in dispatch beyond the statutory period. Result: The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the assessment orders were annulled for being time-barred.
|
