2019 (1) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r grounds in appeal and Ground No.1 and 4 are general in nature which does not require specific adjudication. 3. Ground No.2 is related to the validity of the assessment made by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'Act'). In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) by an order dated 04.03.2012, the said order was served on the assessee on 05.12.2013 with inordinate delay of 9 months. Therefore, the Ld.AR contended that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) is ante dated and it was passed after the limitation period specified in the Act, therefore, contended that the order passed u/s 143(3) is invalid and accordingly requested to quash the assessment order passed u/s 143(3). On appeal, the Ld. C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der was passed on 04.03.2013, no evidence was placed before us to establish that the order infact was passed on 04.03.2013. Though the limitation period is available for passing the assessment order, but not for service of the assessment order and demand notice, the order must be served on the assessee within the reasonable time as held by the various high courts. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Subrata Roy cited supra, wherein, the facts are completely different and distinguishable. In the said case, the order was passed u/s 143(3) on 31.12.2008, but the assessee refused to accept the order, hence the assessment order and the demand notice was sent through registered post which caused delay of 47 days and the Hon'ble High C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... opinion that this appeal has to be dismissed on the ground urged by the assessee himself. As stated above, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is said to have been made on January 6, 1973, but it was served upon the assessee on November 21, 1973, i.e. precisely 10 ½ months later. There is no explanation from the Deputy Commissioner why it was so delayed. If there had been a proper explanation, it would have been a different matter. But, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, we must presume that the order was not made on the date it purports to have been made. It could have been made after the expiry of the prescribed four years period. The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs." In the instant case, there was a....