1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appeal allowed due to time-barred order under IT Act</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the order under section 263 of the IT Act was time-barred due to delayed service, quashing the order as ... - Issues:1. Additional ground challenging the order of CIT under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, as being barred by limitation.Analysis:1. The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961, on the basis that it was served after the statutory time limit. The Authorized Representative pressed only the additional ground during the hearing.2. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground for adjudication as it involved a legal issue regarding the limitation period for passing the order under section 263.3. The Authorized Representative argued that the order by the CIT was served after 230 days of passing, contending that there is a legal presumption that an order was not passed on the date it bears if not served promptly. Citing legal precedents, the Representative emphasized the importance of proper issuance and service of orders.4. The Departmental Representative argued that there was a distinction between the passing and service of an order, mentioning that service was not required in this case. They provided a copy of a letter to support that the order was served on the specified date.5. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 263 and noted that any order passed by an authority must be pronounced or published for the affected party to be aware of it. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the significance of issuance and service of orders within the prescribed period. Due to lack of reliable evidence and explanations regarding the delayed service of the order, the Tribunal allowed the additional ground, ruling the order under section 263 as time-barred.6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the order under section 263 as being beyond the statutory limitation period.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the application of legal principles in determining the order's validity based on the limitation period specified under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
