TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. We come to Revenue's appeal ITA No.1194/Kol/2017. Its sole substantive grounds pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding the assessment in issue to be framed beyond the stipulated limitation period vide detailed discussion: "2. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the appellant had preferred this appeal with the following grounds of appeal. 1. That the impugned assessment order dated 31/ 03/ 2014 passed by the Ld. DCIT and served on the appellant on 28/04/2014 is time barred, illegal and void ab initio. 2. That the impugned assessment order passed u/ s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. DCIT on 31/03/2014 is against law and facts of the case and against the establis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 and the order has got time barred and it is illegal. In support of his proposition, appellant has cited the following judgments/decisions. 1. State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M. Ramakrishtaiah & Co.- 93 STC 40; (SC). 2. CIT vs. Shri Narayani Chandrika Trust - 212 ITR 456 (Ker) 3. Government of Wood Works vs. State of Kerala - 69 STC 62 (SC) 4. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. & Another vs. CTO & Others - 101 STC 461 (ITAT, Kolkata). 5. Shanti Lal Ghodawat & ors. Vs. ACIT- (2009) 726 TTJ (Jd) 135 (ITAT, Jodhpur) 6. CIT vs. M/s. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand & Sons - 2008 TMI- 3777 (P &HHC) 7. M/s. Dilip Mohan Seth vs. ITO - ITA No. 2110/Kol/2009 (ITAT, Kolkata) 8. CIT vs. Kappumalai Estate- (1998) 234 ITR 167 (Ker) 9. K. Joseph Jacob vs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this regard. I have also perused the assessment records and I am separately communicating my observations to Pr CIT-17, in this matter. In view of the facts narrated above and the case laws cited by assessee, it is held that order passed by the A.O was barred by limitation as it appears to have been passed after 31/03/2014. Hence, assessment u/s 143(3) dated 31/03/2014 is quashed. As the assessment order is quashed, merits of the case have not been looked into. 3. Learned Senior Departmental Representative vehemently contends during the course of hearing that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in quashing the impugned assessment to have framed beyond the limitation period prescribed. He quotes hon'ble jurisdictional high court'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e similar, except that one further question has been referred at the instance of the assessee, namely, "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under Section 263 is not barred by limitation". We shall deal with this question which arises in Income-tax References Nos. 81 and 82 of 1986 relating to this year. The Income-tax Officer made an order of assessment on January 12, 1981, holding that income accruing, to the assessee-trust from the firms of which it was a partner was exempt under Section 10(22A), as income accruing to the hospital, deviating from the stand taken by him earlier. The Commissioner of Income-tax took u....