- (1.) THE Court: The subject of challenge in this appeal, at the instance of the revenue, is a judgment and order dated 19th November, 2012 by which the learned Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that the assessment order was not passed on 31st December, 2008 which was the last date for making the assessment. The ground originally taken before the CIT(A) reads as follows: For that the assessment is barred by limitation since the order of assessment and the demand notice was served 47 days after the limitation period and there was no evidence that the same was completed before the end of the limitation period and left the control of the AO within such period.
(2.) THE aforesaid ground of the assessee before the CIT(A) failed for the following reasons appearing from the order dated 13th November, 2009 passed by the CIT(A). I have considered the submission of the appellant and perused the assessment order. I have also gone through the assessment records. On perusal of assessment records and the order sheets attached to the assessment record, it is seen that the assessment was completed on 31.12.2008 and it was signed on the same date along with the demand notice and notice u/s. 274 read with section 271 of the I.T. Act. The assessment order and the notice of demand were handed over to the Departmental Notice Server for service of the same on the appellant. However, it is reported by the notice server that the assessment order and the demand notice were refused to accept by the appellant. Later on, the order and the demand notice were sent by Registered Post. It is also observed from the assessment records that the last date of hearing was on 15.12.2008 and hence there is no reason to doubt that the assessment was not completed within the limitation period. Thus, from the assessment records, it is apparent that the assessment was completed within the limitation period i.e. on 31.12.2008. Moreover, section 153 of the I.T. Act states that no order of assessment shall be made u/s. 143 or section 144 at any time after expiry of (a) two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable; or .....................Thus, the Act also speaks about the completion of assessment and not the service of assessment order. In the case of K.U. Srinivasa Rao vs. Commissioner of Wealth -Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Visakhapatnam, : 152 ITR 128 (A) the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: The word to be noticed is "made". It must be remembered that an order of assessment is not an administrative order, but a quasi -judicial order. It is true that an order of assessment may not have been made in the presence of the assessee and that it requires to be communicated, but still, its character as a quasi -judicial order must be kept in mind while interpreting the word "made". The Act merely requires that an order of assessment shall be made within the prescribed period. It does not further require that it should be communicated within the period prescribed.
(3.) THE jurisdictional High Court in the case of India Ferro Alloy Industry Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, : 202 ITR 671 (Cal) on the issue involved has held as under: what is required for completion of the assessment is the determination of the tax liability and issue of demand notice but certainly not the service of the same on the assessee.;