9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 428 - AT - Income TaxReasonableness of declaring the assessment made by the AO as null and void by observing that the notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued in status of Local Authority whereas status of assessee is of Artificial Juridicial Person without appreciating the fact that the proforma of notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1) are prescribed and there is no claim in these notices where the status of the assessee can be mentioned - Held that - On the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) was not correct in holding that assessment is null and void. The defect in issuance of notice and assessment noted by the CIT(A) was not fatal so as to render the assessment null and void. It was curable defect. Matter remitted to the file of the AO to consider the issue afresh.
Issues:
1. Validity of assessment made by the Assessing Officer in the status of Artificial Juridical Person without issuing proper notices. 2. Failure to consider specific grounds challenging additions and estimate of total income by the Assessing Officer. 3. Legality of assessment framed in the status of Artificial Juridical Person without notice or indication to the assessee. 4. Authority of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) to give directions under section 150 of the Act. 5. Proper opportunity of hearing granted to the assessee. 6. Correctness of holding the assessment as null and void. 7. Appellate jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) to give directions. Analysis: 1. The common issue raised in the Revenue appeals pertains to the validity of the assessment made by the Assessing Officer in the status of Artificial Juridical Person without issuing proper notices. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) declared the assessment null and void, citing that the assessment order was passed without following due process, as notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) were not issued in the correct status of the assessee. 2. The cross objections by the assessees highlighted the failure of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) to consider specific grounds challenging additions and the estimate of total income made by the Assessing Officer. The assessees contended that the assessment of different amounts in these cases was incorrect and illegal, and that the estimate of income was unjustified. 3. The assessment framed in the status of Artificial Juridical Person without proper notice or indication to the assessee regarding the change in status was deemed legally untenable. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that the Assessing Officer should have initiated action under section 147 if there were doubts about the status of the assessee, rather than changing the status in the assessment order without following due process. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) issued directions under section 150 of the Act for the remedial action in the case of the assessee for a specific assessment year. However, the assessees argued that the Commissioner did not have the authority to give such directions, as it was beyond the powers granted under section 251(1) while disposing of an appeal against an order of assessment. 5. One of the grounds raised by the assessee was the lack of proper opportunity of hearing granted during the assessment proceedings. This raised concerns about procedural fairness and compliance with the principles of natural justice. 6. The correctness of holding the assessment as null and void was contested by the appellate tribunal. It was argued that the defect in the issuance of notice and assessment was not fatal to render the assessment null and void, as it was a curable defect. The tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not correct in his assessment of the situation. 7. The appellate tribunal, after careful consideration, decided to remit the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, ensuring that the assessees are given proper opportunity to present their case. This decision was based on the interest of justice and the duty of the appellate authority to correct errors in the proceedings under appeal and issue appropriate directions as necessary.
|
