9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of quashing the assessment due to non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2). 2. Applicability of the limitation period for notice u/s 143(2) in returns filed in response to notice u/s 148. 3. Opportunity for the Assessing Officer (AO) to present views during appellate proceedings. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of Quashing the Assessment Due to Non-Issuance of Notice u/s 143(2) The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment on the grounds that the AO did not issue a mandatory notice u/s 143(2) before completing the assessment. The CIT(A) found that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued, which is mandatory for assuming jurisdiction. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Hotel Blue Moon, which stated that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory and not merely procedural. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessment was void ab initio due to the lack of proper jurisdiction. Issue 2: Applicability of Limitation Period for Notice u/s 143(2) in Returns Filed in Response to Notice u/s 148 The Revenue argued that the limitation period for issuing a notice u/s 143(2) does not apply to returns filed in response to a notice u/s 148. The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that the requirement of issuing a notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory even in reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148. The CIT(A) cited various judicial decisions, including those of the Madras High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which held that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is a mandatory requirement for reassessment proceedings. Issue 3: Opportunity for the AO to Present Views During Appellate Proceedings The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) quashed the assessment without giving the AO an opportunity to present his views during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had called for the records of the AO and found that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. The Tribunal emphasized that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is a jurisdictional requirement, and its absence renders the assessment proceedings void. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment due to the non-issuance of a mandatory notice u/s 143(2), which is a jurisdictional requirement. The Tribunal emphasized that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory for reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 and that its absence renders the assessment void ab initio. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was set aside to the file of the AO to issue a notice u/s 143(2) and proceed in accordance with the law.
|
