The J & K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd., Jammu V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

ITA 631/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 63120914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.631 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AAAFJ6591R THE J & K COOPERATIVE VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, 243 NEW PLOTS, JAMMU JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. JOGINDER SINGH, CA RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 01.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.11.2014 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M. 1. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A ), JAMMU. 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE AS UNDER: I. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A), JAMMU, HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FAC TS OF THE CASE. II. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED A.O. IS BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGAL AS THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 03.10.2008. III. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS NOT VALID AS THE SAM E HAS BEEN 2 I.T.A. NO.631 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT FOR SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE. IV. THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS BARRED BY TIME AND IS VOID AB-INITIO. 3. THE SOLE ISSUE HEREIN IS AS TO WHETHER IN A SITU ATION WHERE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEYOND THE LI MITATION PRESCRIBED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE SA ID NOTICE AND THE A.O.S ORDER PASSED IN PURSUANCE THERETO ARE ILLEGAL. 4. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE, THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 29.09.2008. IT WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 03.10.2008. VIDE LETTER DATED 23.11.2009 (REPRODUCE D IN PARA 2.1 OF THE A.O.S ORDER), THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE THE A.O. , THAT AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2)(II) OF THE ACT, NO NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 143(2)(II) SHALL BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX M ONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED ; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN ON 14.11.2007; THAT SIX MONTHS FRO M THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR HAD EXPIRED ON 30.09.2008; THAT THOU GH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND DISPATCHED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TH E STIPULATED TIME; AND THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 143(2) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS B E FILED. 3 I.T.A. NO.631 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 5. VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2009, THE A.O. REJECTED T HE ASSESSEES ABOVE CONTENTIONS AND HELD AS FOLLOWS: AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS PRESCRIBED UND ER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION, WHICH HAVING DULY RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE CONTENDED THAT NO VALID NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS THAT THE N OTICE HAS DULY BEEN ISSUED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AND SENT TO THE A SSESSEE BY SPEED POST WHICH TESTIMONY THE CONTENTION THAT VALID NOTICE HA S DULY BEEN ISSUED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD. MOREOVE R, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAT THE CASES ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO RELY, AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE ARGUMENT THAT PROCEEDIN GS INITIATED MAY BE FILED IS NOT CORRECT. 6. THE CIT(A), CONFIRMING THE A.OS OBSERVATIONS, H ELD AS UNDER: GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 2 RELATES TO VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 03.10.2008 AND THE SAME IS TIME BARRED. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE A. O. HAS ALTHOUGH ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON 03.10.2008 BUT THE SAME NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. ON 25.09.2005 AN D SENT THROUGH SPEED POST. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME AND ACCORDINGLY THE NOTICE U NDER CONSIDERATION IS VALID ONE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE US, HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON OIP SENSOR SYSTEM INDIA LIAISON OFFICE VS. ADIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI (COPIES FI LED), A DECISION (AUTHORED BY ONE OF US, THE J.M.) DATED 20.12.2013 OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCHES, IN ITA NO. 5796/DEL/2010, FOR THE A.Y. 200 7-08. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, A JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2011, PASSED IN C.W .P. NO. 18193 OF 4 I.T.A. NO.631 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 2011 (COPIES FILED), AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, BUT REND ERED BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, WHICH IS NOT THE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT QUA THE ASSESSEE, HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THEREIN, WHI LE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESEE. 8. HE HAS ALSO RELIED ON COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X VS. SUNIL KUMAR CHHABRA, 250 CTR 195 (P&H), WHEREIN, AS PER THE LEARNED COUNSEL, V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) STA NDS DISTINGUISHED. 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES: I. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INDERPAL MALHOTRA , (2008) 171 TAXMAN 359 (DELHI), II. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VARDHMAN ESTATE PVT . LTD, (2005) 287 ITR 1 (DELHI), III. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. BHAN TEXTILES PVT. LTD., (2005) 287 ITR 300 (DELHI), IV. RATTAN LAL TIKU VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( 1974) 97 ITR 553 (J&K) 10. THE LEARNED DR, PER CONTRA, SUPPORTING THE CONCU RRENT FINDINGS OF THE TAXING AUTHORITIES, HAS RELIED ON V.R.A. CO TTON MILLS (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (SUPRA). IN THIS DECISION , THEIR LORDSHIPS, RELYING ON COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX AND OTHERS VS . SUBHASH AND CO. (2003) 3 SCC 454, HAVE HELD AS FOLLOWS: IN VIEW OF THE SAID JUDGMENT, THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE BY THE ADDRESSEE IS NOT RELEVANT TO DETERMINE, AS TO WHETH ER THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITAT ION. THE EXPRESSION SERVE MEANS THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE. THE DATE O F RECEIPT OF NOTICE CANNOT BE LEFT TO BE DETERMINED DEPENDENT UPON THE WILL OF THE 5 I.T.A. NO.631 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ADDRESSEE. THEREFORE, TO BRING CERTAINLY AND TO AVO ID ATTEMPTS OF THE ADDRESSEE TO EVADE THE PROCESS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE , THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE WILL BE BETTER SERVED, IF THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE IS CONSIDERED AS COMPLIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVISO TO SECT ION 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THAT IS THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE ARRIVED AT TO THE EXPRESSION SERVE APPEARING IN SECTION 143(2) OF T HE ACT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA ), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE, WHICH IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS COMPLIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISO TO SEC TION 143(2) OF THE ACT. 12. V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS NOT B EEN FOLLOWED IN OIP SENSOR SYSTEM INDIA LIAISON OFFICE (SUPRA) A ND IN PARA NOS. 19 TO 21 OF THE ORDER, THE ITAT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: 19. 'VRA COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.' (SUPRA), SOUGHT TO BE RELIED ON BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS REGARD, IS FOUND TO BE OF NO AVA IL TO THE DEPARTMENT. THIS IS SO, SINCE 'VARDHAMAN ESTATE (P) LTD.' (SUPR A) AND 'LUNAR DIAMONDS LTD.' (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY CO-ORD INATE BENCHES OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WHEREAS 'VRA COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD.' (SUPRA) HAS BEEN HANDED DOWN BY THE HON' BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND IT IS A DECISION HANDED DOWN BY ITS JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BY WHICH A BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IS GOVERNED. MOREOVER, NEITHER 'LUNAR DIAMONDS LTD.' ( SUPRA), NOR 'VARDHAMAN ESTATE (P) LTD.' (SUPRA) APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN CITED BEFORE THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN 'VRA COT TON MILLS PVT. LTD.' (SUPRA). THE JUDGEMENT IN 'VRA COTTON MILLS P VT. LTD.' (SUPRA), DOES NOT STATE ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY. 20. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING 'LUNAR DIAMON DS LTD.' (SUPRA) AND 'VARDHAMAN ESTATE (P) LTD.' (SUPRA), BOTH OF HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL 6 I.T.A. NO.631 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ACCEPTED AND IT IS HELD THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRE D IN TAKING THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT, I .E., 30.09.2008 AS THE DEEMED DATE OF THE SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE ON THE AS SESSEE. IN FACT, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DATE OF SERVICE ITA NO.5796/ DEL/2010 OF SUCH NOTICE IS THE DATE OF ITS ACTUAL RECEIPT BY THE ASS ESSEE, I.E., 01.10.2008. 21. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSE SSEE BY WAY OF GROUND NO.1 IS FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIED AND IS ACCEPTED AS SU CH. WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON THE ASS ESSEE BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143 (2) (II) AS APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY, ALL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT T O SUCH NOTICE ARE HELD TO BE ILLEGAL. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED. 13. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT IN OIP SENSOR SYSTEM INDI A LIAISON OFFICE (SUPRA), V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. (SU PRA) WAS NOT FOLLOWED. V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT A JUD GMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT SO FAR AS REGARDS THE DEL HI BENCHES OF THE ITAT. TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIG H COURT WERE FOLLOWED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE, TO HOLD THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAVING BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEYOND THE LIMITATION PROVIDED BY THE PROV ISO TO SECTION 143(2)(II) OF THE ACT, ALL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SUCH NOTICE WERE ILLEGAL. 14. IN SUNIL KUMAR CHHABRA (SUPRA), V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN DISTINGUISHED, AS FOLLOWS: HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DI VISION BENCH JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD . (SUPRA) IS TOTALLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASES B ECAUSE IT HAS BEEN 7 I.T.A. NO.631 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ESTABLISHED THAT IN ONE CASE THE REVENUE-APPELLANT HAS SENT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT ON A WRONG ADDRESS AND IN THE OTHER CASE THE REVENUE-APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUB STANTIATE BY ADDUCING ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION 15. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FACTUM OF ISSUANCE OF N OTICE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT IS NOWHERE DISPUTED. 16. MOREOVER, IN SUNIL KUMAR CHHABRA (SUPRA), IN P ARA NOS. 9 AND 10 THEREOF, IT HAS, INTER ALIA, ALSO BEEN HELD THAT : SECTION 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897, EXPLA INS THE MEANING OF SERVICE BY POST AND READS AS UNDER: 27. MEANING OF SERVICE BY POST WHERE ANY CENTRAL ACT OR REGULATION MADE AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACT AUTHORIZES OR REQUIRES ANY DOCUMENT TO BE SERVED BY POST, WHETHER THE EXPRESSION SERVE OR EITHER OF THE EXPRESSIONS GIVE OR SEN D OR ANY OTHER EXPRESSION IS USED, THEN, UNLESS A DIFFERENT INTEN TION APPEARS, THE SERVICE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE EFFECTED BY PROPERLY ADDRESSING, PRE- PAYING AND POSTING BY REGISTERED POST, A LETTER CON TAINING THE DOCUMENT, AND, UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVED, TO HA VE BEEN EFFECTED AT THE TIME AT WHICH THE LETTER WOULD BE DELIVERED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF POST. (EMPHASIS BY US) FROM THE BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT IT IS CLEAR THAT SERVICE WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE SUFFICIENT LY EFFECTED IF A LETTER CONTAINING THE DOCUMENT IS PROPERLY ADDRESSE D, PREPARED AND POSTED BY REGISTERED POST. 17. THUS, EVEN AS PER SUNIL KUMAR CHHABRA (SUPRA), IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 27 OF THE GENERAL CLAUSES A CT, 1897, IT IS THE DATE OF POSTING, ON WHICH THE SERVICE WOULD BE DEEM ED TO HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENTLY EFFECTED. 8 I.T.A. NO.631 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 18. SUNIL KUMAR CHHABRA (SUPRA), THEREFORE, ALSO D OES NOT FURTHER THE CAUSE OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS DECISION DOES NOT D IFFER WITH V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). 19. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. VARDHAMAN EST ATE (P) LTD., 287 ITR 368 (DEL.), IT WAS HELD THAT IN A CA SE INVOLVING SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE DATE OF DISPATCH OF NOTICE IS NOT THE DEEMED DATE OF SERVICE AND THAT WHERE THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE NOTICE SENT BY SPEED POST WAS SERVED ON AN Y EARLIER DATE THAN THAT CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL HAD CORRECT LY HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT VALID ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATIO N. 20. IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. LUNAR DIAMOND S LTD., 281 1 ITR (DEL), WHEREIN NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS STAT ED BY AFFIDAVIT NOT TO HAVE BEEN SERVED, IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS THE BURD EN OF THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE SERVICE OF NOTICE WITHIN TIME AND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH PROOF, THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT VALID. 21. IT IS THUS SEEN THAT WHEREAS THE ISSUE AT HAND H AS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF VARDHAMAN ESTATE (P) LTD. (SUPRA) AND LUNAR DIAM ONDS LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS DECID ED IT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). HOWEVER, NEITHER THE 9 I.T.A. NO.631 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DELHI HIGH COURT, NOR THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COU RT IS THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT SO FAR AS PRESENT ASSESSE E IS CONCERNED, THE PRESENT ASSESSEE BEING GOVERNED BY THE HONBLE J&K HIGH COURT. NO DECISION OF THE HONBLE J&K HIGH COURT EITHER WAY O N THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CITED BEFORE US. NOW, IT STANDS WELL SETTLED THAT W HERE NON-JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS HAVE TAKEN DIVERGENT VIEWS ON A PARTICU LAR ISSUE, THE ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS BE FOLLOWED, AS HELD I N COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS, 1973 AIR 927. 22. ALSO, AS NOTED IN OIP SENSOR SYSTEMS INDIA LIAI SON OFFICE (SUPRA), NEITHER VARDHAMAN ESTATE (P) LTD. (SUPRA ), NOR LUNAR DIAMONDS LTD. (SUPRA) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN CITED I N V.R.A. COTTON MILLS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). 23. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING VA RDHAMAN ESTATE (P) LTD. (SUPRA), AND LUNAR DIAMONDS LTD. (SUP RA), AS FOLLOWED IN OIP SENSOR SYSTEMS INDIA LIAISON OFFICE (SUPRA), THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIED AND IS ACCEPTED A S SUCH. WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RIGHT IN CONTENDING THAT SINCE THE NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN TH E PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WH ICH THE RETURN WAS FURNISHED, AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2)(II) OF THE ACT, 10 I.T.A. NO.631 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE WAS BELATED. THE SAID N OTICE WAS UNDISPUTEDLY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 03.10.2008 (THE LIMITATIO N HAVING EXPIRED ON 30.09.2008), AND EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 29.09.2008, THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE IS BARRED BY THE STATUTORY LI MITATION. 24. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS SET ASIDE AND CANCELLED. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: J&K COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD., 243 NEW PLOTS, JAMMU. 2. DCIT, CIRCLE -2, JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.