Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The learned Counsel reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities and submitted that the Assessment Order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act is barred by limitation. The Order was served to the assessee on 04.01.2017 and referred to Page No.35 wherein the postal stamp is there for having delivered the envelope and he also referred to page No.36 which is a track consignment which is evidencing that actual envelope was delivered to the assessee on 04.01.2017. The learned Counsel further referred to Paper Book Page No.76 and stated that on 31.12.2016 only 2 letters were received by the post authorities and Sl. No. 3 is in the name of the assessee where the writing is different but there is no postal stamp of the postal department which can prove that the letter was not dispatched on 31.12.2016 which is a xerox copy of the BNPL booking journal and correspondingly he referred to Paper Book Page No.75 which is a copy of the remand report in which it has been stated that the Assessment Order was completed assessment order on 30.12.2016 and it was dispatched on 31.12.2016 but from the BNPL booking journal on 31.12.2016 it has not been received by the postal authorities and there is no stamp. On 31.12.2016, only 2 SPAS letters were received on 31.12.2016 by the postal department which is clear from the handwriting in the BNPL booking journal. As per track consignment it was dispatched on 03.01.2017. The AO had not passed the assessment order within the specified date as per section 153 of the Act but it was passed after31.12.2016. what was the need to keep the order for two days with him. Therefore, the order passed by the AO are beyond the limitation period which is non- est. In support of his arguments, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Maharaja Shopping Complex Vs. DCIT in ITA No.832/2008 dated 14/10/2014 and he submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee in which it has been held as under:

12. The tax payable was determined on 30.12.2016 and further submitted that the judgment relied on by the learned AR is not applicable to the present facts of the case. Further, on merits of the case, he relied on the Order of the lower authorities.

13. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material on record and Order of the authorities below, we noted that the Assessment Order was passed on 30.12.2016 and as per the postal track consignment, it was received by the postal department on 03.01.2017 which was delivered to the assessee on 04.01.2017. The issue raised by the assessee is that the Assessment Order passed by the AO is beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, the Order is non-est in the eyes of law and has relied on the judgment noted supra. We have gone through the provisions of section 143(3) of the Act noted supra and judgments relied on by both the parties. We found substance on the case law relied on by the learned DR in the case of Kalyankumar Ray vs. CIT (supra). In the case on hand the demand notice (ITNS 150) was generated on the date of Assessment Order and as per the screen shot referred to by the learned DR at page No.77, the date of Order is 30.12.2016 which cannot be changed by anybody. The AO has completed the assessment on the basis of the documents submitted before him as required by the AO on the specified points and the AO has considered all those materials as produced by the assessee and he assessed the total income of the assessee and determined the sum payable by him on the basis of the documentary evidence / examinations / observations on the 30.12.2016. On going through section 153 of the Act, we noted that the words used "assessment under section 143 or 144 may be made at any time before the expiry of 12 months from the end of the Financial Year in which such return was furnished" as amended. It is noted that nowhere mentioned in the section 153 of the Act that Order must be received as per the provisions of section 153 of the Act by the assessee and during the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of both the parties that the Hon'ble Apex Court had interpreted the issue regarding "made" in the case of CIT, Chennai Vs. Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed reported in [20121] 131 taxmann.com 94 (SC) in which it has been held as under:-