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, for the purpose of the limitation prescribed for completing an assessment, an assessment order is made only when it is communicated to the assessee, or when it is passed by the Income-tax Officer.
Analysis: The limitation under section 34(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 operated on the Income-tax Officer and required the assessment to be completed within the specified period. The provision did not state that communication of the assessment order to the assessee within that period was necessary. The distinction was drawn between the making of an assessment order, the issue of notice of demand under section 29, and the subsequent service or communication of the order. Authorities dealing with limitation for revision or with constitutional requirements for effective orders were held inapplicable because they concerned different statutory settings. The assessment in the present case had been made within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, even though the notice of demand was served later.
Conclusion: The assessment order is made when it is passed by the Income-tax Officer, not when it is communicated to the assessee. The challenge based on limitation failed and the request for leave to appeal was refused.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a time limit for making an assessment, the assessment is completed by the passing of the order within that period, and later communication or service of notice does not govern the validity of the assessment.