VALUKKO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 13(3)(2), MUMBAI

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) of the Assessee submits that apart from challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) on merit, the Assessee has raised legal issue in Ground No.3. The Assessing Officer allegedly passed the Assessment Order bearing the date of 27.03.2025. No doubt that Assessing Officer could pass Assessment Order till 31.03.2025. However, the said order was not communicated/delivered/served on the Assessee in time. The Assessment Order was dispatched only on 07.04.2025, it was not dispatched before 31.03.2015. The Ld. AR of the Assessee had shown us the original envelope through which the Assessment Order sent, copy of envelope containing the postal receipt (Speed post receipt) and its track record of its delivery is also placed on record generated from the website of “http://www.indiapost.gov.in”. By explaining the track record of registered article the Ld. AR of the assessee shows us that in fact the envelope was delivered on 08.04.2025. Thus, the Assessment Order was not sent within time. The Ld.AR of the Assessee submits that in a series of decision on similar set of facts the Assessment Order has been treated as invalid being time barred by time limit. Ld.AR of the assessee in supports of his submissions relied on the decision of Cuttack Tribunal in Sri Trinadh Chowdary & Others Vs. ACIT in IT(S)A No. 44 to 46/CTK/2016, dated 27.09.2018, Shri Subrata Roy Vs. ITO in ITA No.240/Kol/2010, dated 19.11.2012 and Delhi Tribunal in Instrumentation Laboratory India Pvt Limited Vs DCIT in ITA no. 2051/Delhi/2029 dated 19.04.2024. 3. On merit the Ld.AR of the Assessee submits that various additions were made for the want of submissions and evidence by Assessee. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed such action without admitting additional evidence. Thus, in case the Assessee is not succeeded on legal issue, the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.AO with the liberty of Assessee to furnish complete evidence in respect of each of the issue. 4. On the other hand the Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) of the Revenue submits that Assessee has objected on limitation on the basis of record of postal tracking. The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that postal article contained the date of dispatch, which is of 31.03.2025. The date of dispatch and passing of Assessment Order may be different, however, the Assessment Order was passed within time. On merit the Ld.AR of the Assessee submits that fair and reasonable opportunity was given on various issues. It is the Assessee who has not availed such opportunity nor any satisfactory evidences were furnished. Therefore, all the additions may be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. Firstly, we are considering the ground no.3 which relates to dispatch of order after period of limitation for passing Assessment Order. On perusal of Assessment Order, we find that it contained the date as 30.07.2015. Before us Ld.AR of the Assessee has shown the original envelope containing the postal receipt no.EM196654702IN alongwith its track record. The track record of postal article is extracted below:

Perusal of track record of postal article sent by way of aforesaid postal registration number clearly shows that it was booked only on 07.04.2015 at 9.44 a.m. at Agripada post office, Mumbai. The said article was delivered on 08.04.2015. Postal receipt is not in dispute. Thus, from the aforesaid facts it is clear that postal article was dispatched on 07.04.2015. 7. We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Quolimax Electronics Vs UOI in WP (C) No. 3223 of 2010 reported viz; (2010) 27 STT 231 (Delhi) held that an order is only considered legally "passed" or "adjudicated" when it leaves the control of the adjudicating authority (i.e., the date of actual dispatch, not the date it was signed internally or the date it was received by the taxpayer). If the dispatch occurs after the statutory deadline, the order is hit by limitation and stands void. 8. We also find that Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Instrumentation Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT Circle 10(2), in ITA No.2051/Del/2019, dated 19.04.2024 (Supra) on similar set of facts while considering delay in dispatch of Assessment Order held that Assessment Order was time barred and which was set aside. Similar view was taken by IT(S)A No. 44 to 46/CTK/2016, dated 27.09.2018 in the case of Shri Subrata Roy Vs. ITO, Wd-29(1), in ITA No.240/Kol/2010, dated 19.11.2012 wherein there was similar delay of dispatch of the Assessment Order. We also find a similar view was taken by Cuttack Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Trinadh Chowdary & Others Vs. ACIT (Supra) and thus in view of aforesaid factual and legal view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal, we have no hesitation to hold that the Assessment Order is beyond the time limit despite under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Hence, ground no.3 of the appeal is allowed. Considering the fact that we have allowed ground no.3 of the appeal therefore, adjudication of various other grounds of appeals on merits have become academic. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.