Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the ex parte reassessment order could be presumed to have been passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation because there was an unexplained delay in service of the assessment order and demand notice.
Analysis: The reassessment order was shown to have been passed on the last day of the limitation period, but the copy of the order and the demand notice were not served for more than three years. The respondents did not dispute the delay and offered no explanation for the late service. Applying the principle that unexplained and inordinate delay in communicating an order may justify a presumption that the order was not made on the date it purports to bear, the delay in service supported the inference that the reassessment was not genuinely completed within time.
Conclusion: The reassessment order was held to be beyond limitation and was liable to be quashed; the consequential revisional orders also failed.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the limitation challenge, resulting in quashing of the reassessment and all consequential revisional orders.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an order is served after an unexplained and inordinate delay, the authority may draw a presumption that the order was not actually made on the date it purports to bear and was therefore not passed within the prescribed limitation period.