9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation. In this case, the Ld.Pr.CIT has passed the order u/s 263 on 27.03.2017 and the said order was served on the assessee on 26.12.2017 thus the assessee claimed that the order was passed beyond the limitation period provided u/s 263 of the act. Ld.AR further submitted that the Ld.Pr.CIT heard the case on 10.09.2015 and the order was served on it on 26.12.2017 through post. As per the Act, the order u/s 263 required to be passed on or before 31.03.2017. Since the order was served on 26.12.2017 after lapse of 9 months, the Ld.AR argued that the impugned order u/s 263 was not passed within the time limit allowed u/s 263, hence argued that the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT was barred by limitation. The Ld.AR referring to paper book page ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 24.03.1998 (1998) (3) ALD 478, wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the order served on the assessee beyond 8 months is invalid. 3. On the other hand, the Ld.DR argued that as per the Income Tax Act, order required to be passed on or before 31.03.2017, accordingly, the Pr.CIT had passed the order on 27.03.2017 which is supported by the order sheet entry. The AO also produced record of the Pr.CIT as per which the order was stated to be passed on 27.03.2017. Hence, argued that since the order was passed before 31.03.2017 it was not barred by limitation, and the order is valid, accordingly requested to uphold the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.U.Srinivasa Rao, Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Andhra Pradesh reported in (1985) 152 ITR 0128, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the act merely require that the order of assessment shall be made within the prescribed period, but it does not require that it should be communicated within the prescribed period and thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even though the order was served on the assessee on April 06, 1957, the order was held to be made on or before March 29. In the cited order, the delay was only 9 days, hence, the Supreme Court held that the order deemed to have been made on 29.03.1957. However, in the instant case, though the Ld.PCIT stated to have passed the order on 27.03.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te 20-11- 1995. It purports to revise the order dated 25-11-1991 passed by the Appellate Deputy Commissioner, Kakinada. That order was served on the petitioner on 27-1-1992. For setting aside that order in exercise of revisional powers under Section 20(1), a limitation of 4 years from the date of service of notice is prescribed. It is not in dispute that the last date for passing a final order in exercise of revisional power under Section 20(1) is 27-1-1996 i.e., four years from the date of service of the appellate order: Though the impugned revisional order of the Commissioner bears the date 20-11-1995, admittedly, it was served on the appellant on 30.08.1996. We find from the record that the said order reached the Commercial Tax Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod. The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed." 4.1. Similarly, this Tribunal in the case of Smt.Kosanam Pushpavathi Vs. ITO cited supra, following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Khetmal Parekh & M.Ramakishtaiah and Co. held as under : "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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e months from the date of passing 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
