RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) BY the Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar in ITA No. 462/Asr/2004 [reported as Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand and Sons vs. ITO (2008) 113 TTJ (Asr) 586 - -Ed.] by raising the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in concluding that the assessment (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in law in setting aside the order of the assessment and CIT(A), who based upon the office record had recorded a finding that the assessment order had been was selected for scrutiny and as per the stand of the Revenue, the AO completed the assessment under s. 143(3) of the under : Rent received Rs. 13,95,116.00 Add : Arrears of rent Rs. 25,880.00 Rs. 14,20,996.00 Less : Municipal taxes shown under the account Rs. 1,71,722.00 'House -tax' in 'miscellaneous expenses' Rs. 12,49,274.00 Less : Deduction under s. 24(1)(i) @ 25% Rs. 3,12,318.00 Income from house property Rs. 9,36,956.00 Add : Miscellaneous income Rs. 28,682.00 Total : Rs. 9,65,638.00 Vide this order, the AO also ordered for initiation of penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act against the assessee for concealing the particulars of its income.
(2.) THE assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the said the same is barred by limitation as the same was never properly served upon the assessee. However, the said appeal
(3.) AGGRIEVED against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal raising the grievance that the assessment order for the asst. yr. 2001 -02 had not been passed within the time allowed. Although the assessment order also argued that no effort was made to serve the notice on the assessee through normal means before serving the notice by affixture. Thus, it was submitted that the service of the notice could be done by affixture only if service the same was not served by registered post on that date. It was also stated by the assessee that admittedly, a notice impugned assessment order was also ready along with demand notice and challan, the same could have been accepted It is also relevant to mention here that the Tribunal had asked the Revenue to produce the assessment record before However, the Department failed to produce any record and in fact a statement was made by the Departmental Representative before the Tribunal to the effect that the matter be decided in the light of the facts on record of the case. In view of these facts, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee that the assessment order was not passed Revenue, no evidence was produced before the Bench to show that the assessment order was dispatched by registered witness and thus taking into account these facts coupled with the non -production of assessment record before the Bench, the Tribunal held that the assessment order was time barred and therefore, the impugned assessment order for the year 2001 -02 was quashed being passed after the statutory time limit.;