9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order due to the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) within the stipulated time. 2. Binding nature of the Gauhati High Court's decision on the Mumbai Benches of ITAT. 3. Interpretation and applicability of Section 143(2) and its proviso in the context of block assessment under Section 158BC. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assessment Order Due to Non-Issuance of Notice Under Section 143(2) Within the Stipulated Time: The assessee contended that the assessment order should be declared null and void because the notice under Section 143(2) was not issued within 12 months from the date of filing the return, as required by the proviso to Section 143(2). The search was conducted on 24/8/2000, and the return for the block period was filed on 23/2/01. However, the notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 12/4/02, beyond the 12-month period. This contention was supported by the Gauhati High Court's decision in Smt. Bandana Gogoi v. CIT, which held that non-issuance of notice within the stipulated time renders the assessment void. The Tribunal referred to multiple cases where this principle was upheld, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2). 2. Binding Nature of the Gauhati High Court's Decision on the Mumbai Benches of ITAT: The revenue argued that the Gauhati High Court's decision is not binding on the Mumbai Benches of ITAT, citing decisions from the Bombay High Court which suggest that decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts are not binding. However, the Tribunal noted that the principle of judicial discipline requires following the decisions of higher judicial authorities, even if they are from non-jurisdictional High Courts, unless there is a contrary decision from the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court. The Tribunal cited the consistent application of the Gauhati High Court's decision across various ITAT benches in India, including Mumbai, Delhi, Pune, Hyderabad, and Chandigarh, emphasizing the importance of maintaining judicial consistency. 3. Interpretation and Applicability of Section 143(2) and Its Proviso in the Context of Block Assessment Under Section 158BC: The Tribunal examined the procedural requirements under Section 158BC(b), which mandates the application of Section 143(2) for block assessments. The Gauhati High Court had held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time is mandatory for the validity of the assessment. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, stating that the rule regarding limitation requires strict compliance. The Tribunal also rejected the revenue's argument that the procedural formalities prescribed for block assessments are not mandatory, emphasizing that the time limit for issuing a notice under Section 143(2) is a crucial procedural requirement. The Tribunal further clarified that the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Pratap Singh v. Director of Enforcement, which dealt with procedural formalities under the Customs Act, does not directly apply to the issue at hand. The Tribunal concluded that the Gauhati High Court's decision is directly applicable and must be followed. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) issued by the Assessing Officer was time-barred, rendering the assessment void ab initio. Consequently, the block assessment was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed while the revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial discipline and consistency by following the decisions of higher judicial authorities, even from non-jurisdictional High Courts.
|
