9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02-03 has been preferred on the questions of law stated in paragraph 7 of the application. We formulate the question for hearing of the appeal as under : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the assessment order under sec tion 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2005, received by the respondent-assessee on April 13, 2005, was barred by limitation and as such perverse ?" By consent of the parties, the appeal is treated to be ready for hearing and taken up as such. Mrs. Gutgutia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant-Revenue, urged before us the order of assessment was dated March 31, 2005, and there was no evidence on record to show that the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. In Khetmal Parekh it was held as under (page 407 of 93 STC) : "We are of the opinion that the theory evolved by the High Court may not be really called for in the circumstances of the case. We are of the opinion that this appeal has to be dismissed on the ground urged by the assessee himself. As stated above, the order of the Dep uty Commissioner is said to have been made on January 6, 1973, but it was served upon the assessee on November 21, 1973, i.e., precisely 10½ months later. There is no explanation from the Deputy Commissioner why it was so delayed. If there had been a proper explanation, it would have been a different matter. But, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, we must presume that the order was not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the despatch register. These were the facts on which the respondent-assessee had based its challenge before the Tribunal. We have before us the affidavit evidence to show that a representative of the assessee, on his own volition and without intimation to the Department, visited the office and found the assessment order ready to be served upon him. We also find from the oral evidence of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Departmental representative that all records were produced and the Department had not made any attempt to despatch the order for service on the assessee. In the facts as above, there is no indication that the Assessing Officer revisited the order after March 31, 2005. The probability of the order being made and ready to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
