9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Elegaant Contractors. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 26.09.2008 declaring his income as ₹ 9,92,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 30.12.2010 made certain additions in the income returned by the assessee and assessed the total income as ₹ 87,77,975/- after making addition to the tune of ₹ 77,85,414/- on various counts. The CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 and issued notice to the assessee on 1.2.2012. In response to the notice, the AR of the assessee filed written submissions on 07.3.2012 and 12.03.2012 along with documents in support of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 012, the Assessing Officer supplied the copy of the impugned order to the assessee. A perusal of the impugned order shows that although the order was passed on 26.03.2012, but the assessee never received copy of the order. Since the order was received by the assessee after a gap of more than seven months, the order itself is bad in law as the order was served on the assessee beyond the period of limitation as laid down under sub-section (2) of section 263 of the Act. The AR submitted that since the order itself is beyond limitation, therefore, the same is non-est in the eye of law. In order to support his contention, the AR relied on the order of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer that no such order under section 263 dated 26.03.2012 passed by the CIT has been received by the assessee. In response thereof, the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 29.11.2012 forwarded a copy of the order of CIT under section 263 dated 26.3.2012 for the assessment year 2008-09. The relevant extract of the letter of the Assessing Officer is reproduced herein below:- Sub : Income Tax Assessment for A.Y 2008-09 Reg. Ref : 1. Order of CIT-X u/s.263 of IT Act dated 26.03.12 for A.Y.2008-09. 2. This office notice u/s.143(2) r.w.s. 263 of IT Act dated 6.8.2012 for the A.Y.2008-09. ********** Please refer to the above. The order u/s.263 of IT Act was passed by the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r communicated to the assessee. The provisions of section 263(2) clearly states that order under section 263(1) has to be passed within a period of two years from the end of financial year in which the order sought to be revised is passed. The relevant extract of the provisions of section 263(2) are reproduced herein below:- 263 (1) xxxxxxxxx (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. In the instant case, the assessment order was passed on 30.12.2010. thus, the last date for passing order under section 263 was 31.3.2012 . The impugned order was allegedly passed on 26.03.2012 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (supra) has held as under:- We have also carefully gone through the judgement of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kuppumalai Estate (supra). The Kerala High Court, after referring to their earlier decision in the case of Government Wood Workshop(supra) and in the case of Malayil Mills Vs. State of Kerala (TRC Nos.15 16 of 1981) held that to make the order complete and effective, it should be issued so as to be beyond the control of the authority concerned. Therefore, it is very clear that mere signing of the order is not sufficient to make it an effective order. Sub-section (2) of section 263 clearly says that no order shall be made after expiry of two years from the end of the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
