2016 (2) TMI 1270 - HC - Income Tax

No notice u/s 143(2) on the revised return furnished - HELD THAT - Learned counsel appearing for the appellants are unable to produce the acknowledgement for having served the notice to the respondent-assessee as required under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, answering the substantial questions of law does not arise for consideration. The Appellate Authority has taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter and recorded a clear finding of fact by assigning valid and cogent reasons, holding that no acknowledgment as such has been produced by the revenue, inspite of affording sufficient opportunity. Therefore, the reasoning given by the appellate authority and the appellate Tribunal is strictly in consonance with Section 143(2) of Income Tax Act. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the order of the CIT(A) without considering certain key facts?
2. Whether the order of the Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Appellate Commissioner was justified?
3. Whether the additional ground raised by the assessee was misleading and amounted to misrepresentation of facts?

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, confirming the decision of the Appellate Commissioner, which annulled the assessment order. The revenue contended that the assessing authority had issued a notice under section 143(2) on the revised return, and the Tribunal should have set aside the issue for re-examination. However, the Tribunal and the Appellate Authority found that no acknowledgment for serving the notice to the assessee was produced by the revenue, as required by law. The Court upheld the findings, stating that the revenue failed to provide the necessary acknowledgment, and hence, the substantial questions of law raised were not sustainable for consideration.

2. The Assessing Officer had considered the revised return of income but was not satisfied with it. The Appellate Commissioner ruled in favor of the assessee and annulled the assessment order. Subsequently, the revenue filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which confirmed the Appellate Commissioner's decision. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal had considered all aspects of the matter and found that no acknowledgment for serving the notice was produced by the revenue. As a result, the Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.

3. The third issue revolved around the additional ground raised by the assessee, which the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal annulled the assessment order. The Court found that the additional ground raised was misleading and amounted to misrepresentation of facts. The Appellate Authority and the Tribunal had considered this aspect thoroughly, leading to the annulment of the assessment order. The Court concurred with their findings, stating that the interference by the Court was not warranted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed as lacking in merits.