TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 829
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Both the parties were heard regarding the issue of limitation in framing assessment by the AO and its legal implications as detailed herein. 3. On careful consideration of the material made available before the Tribunal relating to the issue on hand and analyzing the same in the light of orders passed by the Departmental authorities as well as the rival submissions made by both the parties, it is found that undisputedly the assessment orders though passed before the period of limitation contemplated under the relevant provisions of law, the copies of the orders were served to the assessee after the expiration of the limitation provided under the relevant provision. Therefore, the assessees are contending that as the communication of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder relevant provisions of law. Therefore, the contentions of the assessee that they are to be held as passed beyond limitation period, is not tenable under law. Accordingly he sought for upholding the assessment orders passed in all these orders by dismissing the issues raised by the assessee. The following submissions are given by the learned Departmental Representative: "Revenue's case is that the AO after preparing the assessment order sent the same for approval to the Jt. CIT of his range on 28th Dec., 2007 through a forwarding letter duly entered into dispatch register maintained in his office, copy of the relevant page is enclosed at page No. 2. Thereafter the office of the Jt. CIT/Addl. CIT received the order on the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the dispatch clerk on 31st Dec., 2007 for onward transmission of the same to the assessee and the dispatch clerk has made entries thereof in the dispatch register on 31st Dec., 2007 as per copy placed at page No. 17 even though the factual date of handing over of the envelope containing assessment order and other relevant documents acknowledged by the postal authorities is 2nd Jan., 2008. It was also argued that the entries appearing in the different office register and other documents are part of the Government records and these are relevant facts to decide the case as per s. 35 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads as under: 35. Relevancy of entry in public record. made in performance of duty-An entry in any public o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorizations for search under s. 132 or for requisition under s. 132A was executed. (b) in respect of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted under s. 132 or requisition is made under s. 132A within a period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorizations for search under s. 132 or for requisition under s. 132A was executed. Provided............ (i) the provisions of cl. (a) or cl. (b) of this sub-section shall have effect as it for the words "two years" the words "twenty one months" had been substituted." So also, the provisions contained in s. 35(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y such an order is ineffective as it is barred by limitation. The facts are that the assessment order is passed on 13th March, 1985 and it was dispatched on 22nd April, 1985 and received by the assessee on 26th April, 1985 for the asst. yr. 1979-80 and orders were passed on 24th March, 1986 and dispatched on 2nd Dec., 1986 and received by the assessee on 5th Dec., 1986 for the asst. yr. 1980-81. By applying the principles laid down by the High Court in the case of Government Wood Works vs. State of Kerala 69 STC 62 and in an earlier decision of the Bench of the same Court in the case of Malayil Mills vs. State of Kerala in TRC Nos. 15 and 16 of 1991 it was held that the orders for both the years were not made within the period prescribed un....