9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessment is barred by limitation since the order of assessment and the demand notice was served 47 days after the limitation period and there was no evidence that the same was completed before the end of the limitation period and left the control of the AO within such period." The aforesaid ground of the assessee before the CIT(A) failed for the following reasons appearing from the order dated 13th November, 2009 passed by the CIT(A). ''I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the assessment order. I have also gone through the assessment records. On perusal of assessment records and the order sheets attached to the assessment record, it is seen that the assessment was completed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. It is true that an order of assessment may not have been made in the presence of the assessee and that it requires to be communicated, but still, its character as a quasi-judicial order must be kept in mind while interpreting the word "made". The Act merely requires that an order of assessment shall be made within the prescribed period. It does not further require that it should be communicated within the period prescribed." The jurisdictional High Court in the case of India Ferro Alloy Industry (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 671 (Cal) on the issue involved has held as under: "what is required for completion of the assessment is the determination of the tax liability and issue of deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me in appeal. Mr. Dudharia, learned advocate appearing for the revenue-appellant, submitted that there is a presumption in law that all official and judicial acts were regularly performed. He drew our attention to clause (e) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides for a presumption as follows: '"(e) That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;" Mr. Dudharia contended that the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that the Department "could not prove any documentary evidence that the assessment was framed as on 31.12.2008."' He contended that the fact that the assessment order is dated 31st December, 2008 is a proof of the fact that it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advanced by Mr. Bharadwaj today before this Court was never urged before the learned Tribunal. He contended that by way of an afterthought and in order to support the patently wrong order of the learned Tribunal that this submission has been made. With regard to the first submission, Mr. Dudharia contended that clause (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does not apply to this case because the aforesaid clause is applicable with regard to a piece of evidence and has no application to the official records. Moreover, existence of the order dated 31st December, 2008 was never in challenge. The second submission advanced by Mr. Bharadwaj provides ample assurance to the Court that the order dated 31st December, 2008 including oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion for consideration was whether the order dated 31st December, 2008 could be said to have been passed on 31st December, 2008 when the demand notice together with a copy of the order was served after 47 days. A period of 47 days time is not time long enough which can even make anyone suspicious as regards the correctness of the date of the order. In any case the presumption arising out of clause (e) of Section 114 proves the fact that the order was passed on 31st December, 2008. The same presumption once again would apply to the order dated 13th November, 2009 passed by the CIT (Appeal). There is, as such, no reason to even entertain any doubt as regards the existence of the file including the order dated 31st December, 2008. There is eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
