9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 2111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradhan, DR O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT, Bhubaneswar, dated 30.03.2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That the order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is illegal, uncalled for, and without any basis. 2. That no order shall be made u/s 263 (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. The order u/s 143 (3) was passed on 16-11-2011. Therefore the order u/s. 263 is barred by limitation,- because though the date of order is purported to have been passed on 30.03.2014, but the same assessee has not been received by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT. the learned CIT was duty bound to examine the points raised and record definite conclusions in respect of each one of them. [A. Venkat Rao Vs. CIT, 203 ITR 64]. Not doing so the order has become in- abnitio void u/s. 263 and not doing so, the order is illegal. 6. That the learned AO should have considered that where two views are possible and the CIT does not agree with that view taken by the AO and the same has resulted in loss of revenue, it cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. That other grounds if any will urged at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee pressed only on the additional ground which is as under :- ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenses claimed under heads excavator maintenance and truck tipper maintenance expenses and assessee the total income at ₹ 11,35,130/- and passed the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 16.11.2011. 5. Subsequently, the CIT found that the assessment order passed by the AO is without application of mind which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed the AO to redo the assessment. 6. Aggrieved by the CIT order passed u/s.263 of the Act, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before us, ld. AR argued on the additional ground only and submitted that the order passed by the CIT u/s.263 was not issued to the assessee within the period of limitation and the same is barred by limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee'. Similarly, in the provisions of section 149 of the Act, the words used are 'issue to the assessee. Thus, each word used in each section has a different purpose and different meaning. 'Made' cannot be treated on the same footing as served. The fact that the word used is 'made' in section 153 shows that the assessment order should be made on or before the said date. It does not mean that it should be served. On this ground itself as we find that the decision of the Coordinate Bench has erroneously laid down the law on this issue if the word 'made' is given the meaning served then the section itself would become unworkable and it would make all assessment orders made on the last day illegal. In the circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
