9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record that the relevant computation had been uploaded even on the department’s portal. We therefore hold that the CIT(A) has rightly quashed impugned assessment not framed within the time limitation prescribed. Hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision CIT vs. Subrata Roy [2014 (7) TMI 42 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] involves a case where the Revenue had filed sufficient proof before their lordships that the Assessing Officer had framed the assessment in issue within the time period prescribed as against the facts of the instant case. Distinguishable on facts. - I.T.A Nos.1194/Kol /2017, Cross Objection No.10/Kol/2019 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2019 - Shri S. S. Godara, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For the Appellant : Shri C. J. Singh, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing the sum of ₹ 8,78,694/ - on account of interest paid by the assessee on unsecured loans borrowed by the appellant and used for the purpose of his business. 5. That without prejudice, the Ld. DCIT erred in adding the sum of ₹ 73,05,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit without considering the peak credit of unsecured loans. 6. That the Ld. DCIT erred in not allowing deduction of ₹ 2,83,789/- claimed by the appellant against net profit from the proprietary business m/s Agarwal Steel Industries on account of interest paid on loans borrowed for the purpose of business. 7. That the Ld. DCIT erred in disallowing the sum o/Rs.1,344 u/ s 14A of the income tax Act, 1961. 8. That the Ld. DCIT erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time limit of 31/03/2014, it was important to look into this issue. Accordingly, AO was requested to intimate the date of service of the assessment order. In his report dated 20/02/2017 ACIT,Cir-50(1) informed that tear off acknowledgement slip was not available in the assessment records. It was also intimated that assessment order in this case was passed by DCIT-Central Cir- 4(3) (erstwhile DCIT, Central, Cir-XXVII, Kolkata). Accordingly, letter was sent to DCIT, Cir-4(3) in this regard. DCIT Central Cir- 4(3), vide his letter 22/02/2017, informed that assessment order was not dispatched by post and proof of service, if any, would be in the assessment records. After receipt of this report another letter was sent to ACIT, Cir-50(1), to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter 47 days of the statutory period of limitation. We find no merit in Revenue s instant arguments. The facts remains the CIT(A) made tremendous efforts by way of various correspondence(s) to get all the relevant material on record as to whether the impugned assessment had been framed within the statutory time limit up to 31.03.2014 or not. It has come on record that the assessing authority had also failed to indicate any material on record that the relevant computation had been uploaded even on the department s portal. We therefore hold that the CIT(A) has rightly quashed impugned assessment not framed within the time limitation prescribed. Hon ble jurisdictional high court s decision CIT vs. Subrata Roy; [2014] 45 taxmann.com 513 (Calcut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereafter. The question was whether the exercise of the revisional power was barred by time. The Tribunal held otherwise and sustained the order. It is in these circumstances that the additional question has been referred. Sub-section (2) of Section 263 as it stood at the relevant time, prescribed that no order shall be made under Sub-section (1) of the section after the expiry of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised. The Tribunal was of the view that the Commissioner had passed his order within the time prescribed, though it was communicated later. The question as to when an order can be stated to have been made was the subject of consideration by this court in Government Wood Workshop v. State of Kerala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
