2013 (12) TMI 415 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment u/s 143(3) and 144 The initial notice was issued by his predecessor on 15/07/2007, which was issued in time and served on the assessee in time, but, the acknowledgment could not be traced - The fresh notice issued on 26/05/2008 - The assessee submitted the information called for - Held that - The assessee filed application on 08/09/2008 stating that the initial notice u/s 142 was not served in time - As the assessee has mentioned old address in the return of income filed by him. The notice has been served by the AO at the address mentioned in the return of income In view of the amendment to section 292BB The mistake on account of belated service of notice is a curable mistake. - The assessee has not raised such a plea before the AO, and fully participated in the assessment proceedings, the so-called mistake in serving the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, stood cured, on account of the assessee s action in ignoring the same and participating in the proceedings - This amendment has been made applicable w.e.f. 1 st April, 2008 - The provision of new section 292BB shall apply to all proceedings which are pending on 1 st April, 2008 Decided against assessee. Addition on account of unsecured loan received The receipt of brokers with respect to the shares is given in the name of the assessee and not in the name of Maya Devi/Singh and on the other hand Ms. Maya Devi had shown the shares in her balance sheet - Held that - The assessee failed to substantiate his claim by way of material evidence and proper explanation The sources of funds were not properly explained and there were loose ends in the explanation Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Legality of assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of unsecured loans from Mrs. Maya Devi.

Issue 1: Validity of Assessment under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal challenged the assessment for the year 2006-07 due to alleged non-service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act within the stipulated time. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) (CIT(A)) called for a remand report and concluded that the proceedings were not flawed as the authorized representative of the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings without objecting to the notices. The CIT(A) invoked Section 292BB of the Act, which deems belated service of notice as a curable mistake. The Tribunal cited precedents and held that the assessee's failure to raise the issue during the assessment proceedings precluded challenging the validity of the proceedings before the appellate forum. The Tribunal dismissed the grounds related to the alleged invalid notice under Section 143(2) based on the application of Section 292BB and the assessee's participation in the assessment process.

Issue 2: Legality of Assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal contested the legality of the assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, alleging lack of opportunity and improper service of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal reviewed the sequence of events, noting that the initial notice was issued and served in time, although the acknowledgment was lost. The assessee's representative appeared before the Assessing Officer (AO) without raising objections to the notice's timing. The Tribunal found that the assessee's subsequent claim of invalid notice was unfounded, as the notice was served at the address provided by the assessee. The Tribunal, following precedent, rejected the grounds challenging the assessment under Section 144, emphasizing the assessee's participation in the proceedings and the curable nature of any notice-related mistakes.

Issue 3: Addition of Unsecured Loans from Mrs. Maya Devi:
The appeal contested the addition of Rs. 11,17,000 as unsecured loans from Mrs. Maya Devi. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting discrepancies in the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the funds. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee failed to substantiate the claim with material evidence or a satisfactory explanation. The Tribunal found that loose ends in the explanation remained unaddressed, leading to the confirmation of the addition. The Tribunal dismissed the ground of appeal related to the addition of unsecured loans from Mrs. Maya Devi, citing the lack of substantiation by the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the assessment and the addition of unsecured loans while rejecting the challenges to the validity and legality of the assessment under Sections 143(2) and 144 of the Income Tax Act.