TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s noticed that both the appeals by assessee are delayed by 105 days and assessee has filed condonation petitions supported by affidavits stating that the assessee is suffering from heart ailment and was implanted pacemaker few weeks before the month of November, 2012 and appeal was filed before ITAT on 19.03.2013. The appellate order was served on assessee on 05.12.2012 and appeal was filed with a delay of 44 days only whereas registry has mentioned the delay of 105 days by taking the date of service as 5th October, 2012 but actually the service was done on 05.12.2012. On this, when a query was put to Ld. Sr. DR, he fairly conceded the position. In term of the above, as the cause is reasonable for the delay i.e. the ailment of assessee i.e.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AY 1998-99 and after 31.03.2006 for AY 1999-2000 were barred by limitation. In view of these facts he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High court in the case of Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) Vs. Hiren Bhatt or His Successors to Office & Ors. (2011) 334 ITR 25 (Guj), wherein it is held as under (from headnotes): "In this regard, the record produced before the court is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the notices had been sent for booking to the speed post centre only on 7-4-2010, in absence of any evidence to the contrary being pointed out by the respondents, as well in the light of the fact that the said position as confirmed by the Postal Department has not been controverted by the revenue. The court is required to examine the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue. In the circumstances, impugned notices under section 148 in relation to assessment year 2003-04, having been issued on 7-4-2010 which is clearly beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, are clearly barred by limitation and as such, cannot be sustained." 5. I have examined the case records including assessment records and found that the notices issued u/s. 148 was dated 30.03.2005 and 31.03.2006 for AYs 1998-99 and 1999-2000 respectively but, these were issued, as admitted by Ld. Sr. DR, after 31.03.2005 and 31.03.2006. And records clearly shows that both the notices were handed over to Postal Authorities on 05.04.2005 and 07.04.2006 for AYs 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 respectively. In the given facts of ....