9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he exercise of our jurisdiction under article 136 of the Constitution. The appeals are devoid of any merit X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esiding Officer towards such errors while the matter was still fresh in his mind. Accordingly, the learned single judge directed the appellant to bring the alleged anomalies to the notice of the assessing officer and simultaneously, if so advised, he could challenge the assessment order by filing appeal before the appellate authority. The correctness of the order passed by the learned single judge was questioned by the appellant before the Division Bench. On perusal of the original records, particularly order sheets dated March 23, 2002 and June 25, 2002, the learned Judges felt convinced that some over-writings and interpolations in the order sheets had taken place. They observed thus: "In these circumstances, the assertion made by the assessee in his petition about tampering with the record of the proceedings dated March 23, 2002 and June 25, 2002 is apparent, which makes the assessment order an outcome of these mechanisations, by antedating the proceedings and pass the order by ante-dating it and in the allegation of assessee cannot be reasonably ruled out. The assertion of assessee stands fully corroborated by the record of the proceedings which speaks eloquently about its ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the issue of notice, averments in the petition in regard to the interpolation of records are denied. It is stated that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on June 8, 2000, setting aside the assessment order dated March 19, 1998 was received by the assessing officer only on July 13, 2000 and, therefore, the assessment order passed on June 7, 2002 was within time. It is pleaded that even if it is assumed that the assessment order had been actually passed on June 29, 2002, as alleged by the appellant, and had been ante-dated as June 7, 2002, to save limitation, still the same was within the period of limitation, which was to expire on July 12, 2002. Though a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant but the said assertion has not been controverted. Shri Rajiv Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that in the light of its afore-extracted observations and a clear finding that the assessment order for the assessment year 1995-96 had been ante-dated, the order was null and void. It was urged that assessment proceedings after the expiry of the period of limitation being a nullity in law, the High Court should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted by July 12, 2002 (ignoring further period of six months, which could be extended by the Commissioner). That being so, even if it is assumed that the assessment order, for the assessment year 1995- 96, had, in fact, been passed on June 29, 2002, as alleged by the appellant, it was still very much within the time-limit prescribed under the afore-noted provision, i.e., July 12, 2002. We are, therefore, unable to accept the stand of the appellant that the assessment having been made after the expiry of the time-limit, it was null and void and should have been annulled. Having come to the above conclusion, the next question which requires consideration is whether in the light of the observations of the Division Bench in the afore-extracted paragraph on the irregularities as also the conduct of the assessing officer, could the assessment orders be said to be null and void, as pleaded on behalf of the appellants. All irregular or erroneous or even illegal orders cannot be held to be null and void as there is a fine distinction between the orders which are null and void and orders which are irregular, wrong or illegal. Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
