Appeal allowed due to late assessment order, citing Kerala High Court judgment.

The appellate court admitted the appeal to consider substantial questions of law regarding the acquisition of a generator and the completion of assessment within the time limit. The court found that the assessment order was served after the deadline, rendering it invalid and barred by limitation. Relying on a Kerala High Court judgment, the court concluded that the order was dispatched after the deadline, leading to a decision in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to appellate order confirming assessing authority's order
2. Substantial question of law regarding acquisition of generator
3. Additional substantial question of law on assessment completion within time limit
4. Interpretation of law on limitation period for assessment orders

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged the order passed by the appellate authorities, which upheld the decision of the assessing authority. The appeal was admitted to consider the substantial question of law regarding the appellant's failure to prove the acquisition of a generator, despite submitting confirmation from sellers and evidence from books of account. The main issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in its decision concerning the acquisition of the asset.

2. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel requested an additional substantial question of law to be raised regarding the completion of assessment within the time limit. The question raised the jurisdictional aspect of whether the assessment was completed within the limitation period, especially when the order was served after the deadline without providing an opportunity for rebuttal.

3. The undisputed facts revealed that the assessment order for the relevant year had to be passed before a specified date, which was met by the assessing authority. However, the copy of the order was served on the assessee after the deadline. Citing a judgment from the Kerala High Court, it was emphasized that an order is not considered passed until it is issued and communicated to the party affected, beyond the control of the authority. The failure to dispatch the order within the prescribed period rendered the order invalid and barred by limitation.

4. The counsel for the revenue could not establish from the records whether the assessment order was dispatched before the deadline. Consequently, it was concluded that the order was received by the assessee after the limitation period, implying that it was likely dispatched after the deadline. Following the legal interpretation provided by the Kerala High Court judgment, it was determined that the order was indeed barred by the law of limitation. As a result, the additional substantial question of law was answered in favor of the assessee, leading to the allowance of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned orders.

---