JUDGMENT This appeal under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961, preferred by Revenue against consolidated order dated November 21, 2013, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal "A" Bench in I. T. A. No. 1420/Kol/2008 and CO No. 132/kol/2008 filed by assessee for assessment year 2002-03 has been preferred on questions of law stated in paragraph 7 of application. We formulate question for hearing of appeal as under: "Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal erred in law in holding that assessment order under section 143(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2005, received by respondent- assessee on April 13, 2005, was barred by limitation and as such perverse?" By consent of parties, appeal is treated to be ready for hearing and taken up as such. Mrs. Gutgutia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant- Revenue, urged before us order of assessment was dated March 31, 2005, and there was no evidence on record to show that Assessing Officer revisited same in period thereafter till time respondent-assessee received it on April 13, 2005. She submitted assessment order was made on last day of prescribed period under section 153 of Income-tax Act, 1961, and as such Tribunal went wrong in reversing order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to hold same as barred by limitation. Mr. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-assessee, submitted issuance of order could be said to be complete only when same was despatched as communication of order could only then be complete on part of Department. Till before despatch, order was within power of Assessing Officer who could have made addition or alteration thereto and it was settled position that in such circumstances it cannot be said order was duly issued. He relied on following judgments: (1) State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram [1969] 3 SCC 28; (2) Government Wood Works v. State of Kerala [1988] 69 STC 62 (Ker) ; (3) India Ferro Alloy Industry Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 671 (Cal); (4) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Khetmal Parekh [1994] 93 STC 406 (Cal); (5) Commr. of Agrl. I. T. v. Kappumalai Estate [1998] 234 ITR 187 (Ker). In all above cases except Khetmal Parekh (supra) it was held, issuance of order was complete only upon despatch of same so as to put order beyond control of person making it. In Khetmal Parekh it was held as under (page 407 of 93 STC): "We are of opinion that theory evolved by High Court may not be really called for in circumstances of case. We are of opinion that this appeal has to be dismissed on ground urged by assessee himself. As stated above, order of Deputy Commissioner is said to have been made on January 6, 1973, but it was served upon assessee on November 21, 1973, i.e., precisely 10 months later. There is no explanation from Deputy Commissioner why it was so delayed. If there had been proper explanation, it would have been different matter. But, in absence of any explanation whatsoever, we must presume that order was not made on date it purports to have been made." By that decision it appears there was room for order to have been held to be duly made if there was proper explanation from Deputy Commissioner regarding delay in service thereof. case before us is, according to us, distinguishable on facts from decisions cited and relied upon by Mr. Khaitan. Admittedly, there was no attempt on part of Department to despatch order said to have been made on March 31, 2005, being last date on which it could have been made within time prescribed by section 153 of Act. It appears from order of Tribunal representative of assessee had filed affidavit in which he had said he was served with assessment order on April 13, 2005, when he visited office of Income-tax Department. It further appears from said order Commissioner of Income-tax, Departmental representative was confronted with that affidavit and asked whether assessment order left control of Assessing Officer or his office as on March 31, 2005, or not. Commissioner of Income-tax, Departmental representative stated whatever records were available, he had produced, which record did not contain despatch register. On further enquiry, Commissioner of Income-tax, Departmental representative opined that once assessment order including demand notice was served on assessee on April 13, 2005, by hand, there was no question of any entry in despatch register. These were facts on which respondent-assessee had based its challenge before Tribunal. We have before us affidavit evidence to show that representative of assessee, on his own volition and without intimation to Department, visited office and found assessment order ready to be served upon him. We also find from oral evidence of Commissioner of Income-tax, Departmental representative that all records were produced and Department had not made any attempt to despatch order for service on assessee. In facts as above, there is no indication that Assessing Officer revisited order after March 31, 2005. probability of order being made and ready to be collected by representative of assessee as on April 1, 2005, cannot also be ruled out. For reasons aforesaid, we find order of Tribunal requires interference and same is set aside with regard to quashing of assessment as barred by limitation and, consequently, cross-objection of assessee before it being allowed. rest of questions before Tribunal must now be adjudicated by it. We, therefore, answer question formulated above in affirmative, in favour of Revenue and against assessee. appeal is disposed of. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Binani Industries Ltd