9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed u/s 143(3) is barred by limitation and the same is annulled and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A.No.162/Viz/2018 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2019 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR For The Respondent : Smt.Suman Malik, CIT DR ORDER PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Vijayawada vide ITA No.337/CIT(A)/VJA/2016-17 dated 13.03.2018 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2010-11. 2. In this case, the assessee raised total four grounds in appeal and Ground No.1 and 4 are general in nature which does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which gives presumption that the said assessment order was not passed before the time limit allowed under the Act and it was ante dated. Hence, the assessment order required to be annulled. 5. On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, assessment order was stated to have been passed on 04.03.2013, but it was served on the assessee on 05.12.2013 i.e after 9 months. For a query from the bench, the Ld.DR replied that the assessment order and demand notice was served through the departmental notice server. Though the Ld.DR argued that the assessment order was passed on 04.03.2013, no evidence was placed before us to establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing the order, we are unable to accept the contention of the revenue that the order was passed on 04.03.2013. The Ld.AR relied on the decision of ACIT Vs. Orissa Stevedores Ltd., wherein, Hon ble ITAT Cuttack in (2012) 16 ITR 0431 held that the order passed with a delay of 85 days is barred by limitation. Similarly, the Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Khetmal Parekh M.Ramakishtaiah and Co. in Civil Appeal No.491 of 1977 and 1014 of 1977 held as under : 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 assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
