TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come-tax Act, 1961 ( in short 'Act'). Heard 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 no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de 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. 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 unexplai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I. Slate ofAndhra Pradesh vs. M Ramakrishtaiah & Co.- 93 STC 40; (SC). 2. ('IT vs. Shri Narayani Chandrika Trust 212 ITR 456 (Ker) 3. Government of 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 Ke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and I am separately communicating my observations to Pr. CIT17, in this matter. In view of the facts narrated above and the case laws cited by assessee, if is held that order passed by the A.O was barred by limitation as if 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's decision in CIT' vs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 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 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 Commission....