TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 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 31/0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been mentioned that assessment order was served on 28/04/2014. According to assessee, order was passed after 31/03/2014 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has been passed after 31/03/2014. On the other hand A.O is not able to submit any proof to counter the allegation of the assessee. Under the circumstances, I do not have any option but to accept assessee's submissions in 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 R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (1995) 212 ITR 456(Kerala) in similar facts holds as follows: "We shall now deal with the other references and applications under Section 256(2) which have been heard along with these references. The questions referred for the year 1978-79 are 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 Januar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it. It is not enough if the order is made, signed, and kept in the file, because such order may be liable to change at the hands of the authority who may modify it, or even destroy it, before it is made known, based on subsequent information, thinking or change of opinion. To make the order complete and effective, it should be issued, so as to be beyond the control of the authority concerned, for any possible change or modification therein. This should be done within the prescribed period, though the actual service of the order may be beyond that period." 37. The Tribunal has not referred to this decision though it is relevant. We feel that the matter has not been c....