TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d both the learned parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee's sole substantive plea during the course of hearing is that the impugned regular re-assessment allegedly framed on 3103-2016 itself deserves to be quashed since it was served only on 18-08-2016 i.e after 140 days. Learned Counsel invited our attention to the CIT(A)'s discussion regarding the instant legal issue as follows:- 4. Grounds No. 1 is in respect of the limitation u/s 147. The appellant has contended that the impugned order u/s 147/143(3) dt. 31.3.2016 was served only on 18:8.2016 i.e. by delay of 140 s 0 buttress its contention, the appellant has also submitted that the demand created by the impugned order was not uploaded on the website of the Department till 18.8.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Assessing Officer, the appellant had preferred this appeal with the following grounds of appeal. I, That the impugned assessment order dated 3// 03/2014 passed by the Ld. DCIT and served on the appellant on 28/04/2014 is lime 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 established principles of natural justice. 3. That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. ACIT erred in law in making additions of an aggregate sum of Rs. 73,05,000/ - on account of alleged unexplained cash credits appearing in the hooks of accounts. 4. That the Ld. DCIT erred in disallowing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Wood Works vs. Stale of Kerala - 69 STC 62 (SC) 4. Mofatlal Industries Ltd. & Another vs. ('TO & Others - 101 STC 461 (ITAT; Kolkata). 5. Shanti Lal Ghodawat & ors. Vs, ACIT- (2009) 7261TJ (Jd) 135 (ITAT. Jodhpur) 6. CIT vs. MA. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand& Sons - 2008 TMI- 3777 (P &HHC) 7. M/s. Dilip Mohan Seth vs. no - ITA No. 2110//Kol/2009 (ITAT, Kolkata) 8. CIT vs. Kappumalai Estate- (/998) 2341TR 167 (Ker) 9. K. Joseph Jacob vs. Agrl. no & Anr. (1991) 190 Il R 464 (Ker). 10. Malayil Mills vs. Stale of Kerala - (TRC Nos, 15 and 69 (d' (1991) As assessee had leveled serious allegation that assessment order u/s. 143(3) was not passed within the lime limit of 3//03/2014, it was important to look into this issue. Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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's decision in CIT' vs. Subrata Roy; [2014] 45 taxmann.com 5/3 (Calcutta) holding that assessment within limitation period cannot be doubted merely because the consequential demand and notice was served after 47 days of the statutory period of limitation. We find no merit in Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-tax passed under Section 263 is not barred hy 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, 10 the assessee-trust fr0111 the firms of which it was a partner was exempt under Section 10(22A), as income accruing 10 the hospital, deviating from the stand taken by him earlier. the Commissioner of Income-lax took up the matter in revision on January 11, 1983 and set aside the order of assessment. The revisional order was passed on January 11, 1983. and communicated within a period of six days thereafter. The question was whether the exercise of the revisional ....