Case Law Details
Pankaj Sharma Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Assessment made by AO under section 153A was was barred by limitation as though assessment order was dated 28-3-2013, however, it was served on assessee on 18-4-2013, i.e., after expiry of period on which assessment order was liable to be time-barred as per section 153, i.e., 31-3-2013.
Held: Assessee-individual had received a notice under section 153A dated 18.09.2012. On 17.01.2013 assessee filed the return in compliance of notice under section 153A. No assessment order was received by assessee before 31.3.2013. On 17.4.20 13 assessee filed an application stating that no assessment order was served on the assessee and requested to supply the certified copy of the assessment order. On 18.4.2013, AO supplied the certified copy of assessment order allegedly passed on 28.3.2013. AO while completing the assessment order has made various additions and completed the assessment. Assessee contended that though the assessment order was dated 28.3.2013, but it was served on assessee on 18.4.2013 i.e. after the expiry of the period on which assessment order was liable to be time barred as per section 153 and it was barred by limitation. AO contended that the intention of the legislature was to complete the assessment and if the assessment order reached the assessee within the reasonable time, it could not be said that was barred by limitation. It was held according to the evidence of the postal authority, the assessment order dated 28.03.2013 had been dispatched on 01.04.2013. Therefore, assessment in dispute was time barred and void.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
These appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the respective Orders of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad relevant to assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, they were heard together and are being consolidated by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with the facts and circumstances of the case of ITA No. 3556/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11), which will apply mutatis mutandis in other appeal. In both the appeals, the assessee has raised as many as 08 grounds of appeal respectively, but he only argued no. 1 raised in both the appeals, which is legal in nature. The following is a common legal ground no. 1 raised in both the appeals:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
It’s good for coming acknowledge