9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 299 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reassessment u/s 147 of the Act non service of notice u/s 148 to the correct person - Held that - Since assessee s Managing Director has responded to the notices, it cannot be considered at this point of time that notice was not served on the correct person. Generally in most of the proceedings, Authorised Representatives or Accountants regularly appear before the authorities claiming that they represent the company/ assessee. Even before this Forum also many of the Counsels file their Power of Attorney or Vakalat stating to be representing the assessee. These are accepted in good faith. In view of this, the contentions raised by assessee company now that Revenue has not served the notice on the correct person nor the person representing the company was not employed by the company cannot be entertained at this stage of proceedings. - Decided against the assessee. Filing of appeal before CIT(A) without paying admitted tax - Held that - Since the taxes were paid belatedly, Ld. CIT(A) may consider condoning the delay in payment of tax as per the provisions of law and principles on the issue and can maintain the appeals before him, after giving due opportunity to the assessee for seeking condonation of delay. - matter remanded back - appeals of the Assessee and Cross objections of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment under Section 147. 2. Validity of service of notice under Section 148. 3. Issuance of notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time. 4. Additions towards undisclosed income. 5. Maintainability of appeals under Section 249(4) due to non-payment of admitted tax. Detailed Analysis: 1. Reopening of Assessment under Section 147: The Assessee filed belated returns for A.Y. 1995-96 and 1996-97, declaring incomes without payment of taxes. The A.O. initiated proceedings under Section 147 to assess the escaped income, issuing notices under Section 148. The Tribunal agreed that the A.O. correctly initiated the proceedings under Section 147 due to the belated filing and non-payment of taxes, which indicated escaped income. 2. Validity of Service of Notice under Section 148: The Assessee contended that the notice under Section 148 was not properly served. However, the Managing Director of the company responded to the notice promptly, requesting the A.O. to treat the belated returns as filed in response to the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal, agreeing with the CIT(A), held that the service of notice was valid as the Managing Director's response indicated that the notice had reached the correct person. The Tribunal cited various case laws supporting the principle that procedural irregularities in serving notice do not invalidate the proceedings if the Assessee has acknowledged and responded to the notice. 3. Issuance of Notice under Section 143(2) within Prescribed Time: The Assessee argued that no notice under Section 143(2) was served within the stipulated time. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal held that the requirement under Section 143(2) applies when returns are filed under Section 139 or in response to Section 142(1). Since the proceedings were initiated under Section 147, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the assessment orders even if the notices under Section 143(2) were issued belatedly. 4. Additions towards Undisclosed Income: The A.O. made additions towards undisclosed income based on the share capital received by the Assessee, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The Assessee provided various confirmation letters and evidence, which were not entertained by the A.O. and CIT(A) due to non-production of the persons. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) should examine the issue on merits, considering the evidence available on record, to render justice to the Assessee. 5. Maintainability of Appeals under Section 249(4) due to Non-Payment of Admitted Tax: The Revenue contended that the appeals were not maintainable under Section 249(4) as the Assessee had not paid the admitted tax on the returned income. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee paid the admitted tax only during the current proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals for fresh examination, allowing the CIT(A) to consider condoning the delay in payment of tax as per the provisions of law. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the Assessee and the cross-objections of the Revenue for statistical purposes. The maintainability of the appeals was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, including the possibility of condoning the delay in payment of tax and examining the merits of the additions towards undisclosed income. Order: The order was pronounced in the open Court on 18.06.2014.
|
