2010 (9) TMI 1131 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A) u/s 143(3)/148 of the IT Act for asst. yr. 2005-06 due to absence of notice u/s 143(2).

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of assessment order without notice u/s 143(2)
The Revenue appealed against the order of CIT(A) where the assessment order u/s 143(3) r/w s. 148 was deemed invalid for lack of notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act. The AO affixed notice u/s 148 on 16th May, 2007, and the assessee responded by filing a return on 24th Dec., 2007. The AO made additions to the income, treating investments as undisclosed income. The CIT(A) found the assessment order invalid as no notice u/s 143(2) was issued, following precedents like Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon and R. Dalmia v. CIT. The AO confirmed no notice u/s 143(2) was issued after the return was filed. The CIT(A) upheld the order citing legal precedents, and the Revenue appealed against it.

Issue 2: Legal precedents and arguments
The case was compared to Asstt. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon where the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of issuing notice u/s 143(2) after the assessee files a return in response to a notice. Similarly, CIT v. Ms. Mudra G. Nanawati held notice u/s 143(2) as mandatory even in reassessment proceedings. The Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Triple Crown Agencies also supported the requirement of notice u/s 143(2) in reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on these legal precedents, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment order without notice u/s 143(2) was invalid. The case was decided in favor of the assessee based on established legal principles and precedents.