2019 (2) TMI 1944 - AT - Income Tax

No notice under section 143(12) - HELD THAT - As evident from the above notice it was served not on the assessee but on one Abdul Wahid. The Department has not been able to show this notice to have been served on either the assessee or on his agent. Therefore the assessee is correct in contending that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was served on him. Thus as relying HARSINGAR GUTKHA P. LTD. 2008 (5) TMI 443 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT on the entire proceedings in the present case culminating in the impugned order are held to be null and void and are quashed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order issued under Section 147 without mandatory Notice under Section 148
2. Violation of Scrutiny norms in passing the Order of Assessment
3. Jurisdiction of the Officer passing the Order of Assessment
4. Service of the Statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act
5. Assessment passed beyond the limitation period
6. Addition of Rs. 12,62,100 made by the Assessing Officer
7. Lack of proper opportunity of hearing provided by the CIT (A)
8. Delay in filing the appeal and condonation of the same

Validity of Assessment Order under Section 147 without Notice under Section 148:
The appellant challenged the assessment order issued under Section 147 without the mandatory Notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. They argued for the quashing of the order and subsequent annulment by the Ld. CIT(A). The contention was that the assessment was invalid due to the absence of the mandatory notice.

Violation of Scrutiny Norms in Passing the Order of Assessment:
The appellant claimed that the Order of Assessment was passed in violation of Scrutiny norms, seeking its annulment as the proceedings were declared void-ab-initio. They argued that the investment in immovable properties was misrepresented as the appellant was only a co-owner of a small share.

Jurisdiction of the Officer Passing the Order of Assessment:
The appellant contended that the Order of Assessment was passed by an Officer lacking jurisdiction over the assessee, leading to a demand for the proceedings to be declared void-ab-initio. They sought the quashing of the order confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Service of the Statutory Notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant argued that the Order of Assessment was passed without the service of the Statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, rendering the proceedings void-ab-initio. The appellant sought the quashing of the order confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Assessment Passed Beyond the Limitation Period:
The appellant claimed that the Order of Assessment was passed beyond the limitation period, making the entire proceedings void-ab-initio. They sought the quashing of the order confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Addition of Rs. 12,62,100 Made by the Assessing Officer:
The appellant contested the addition made by the Assessing Officer, arguing that it was both bad in law and factually incorrect. They claimed that the investment was explained and made from disclosed sources of income, seeking the annulment of the order confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Lack of Proper Opportunity of Hearing Provided by the CIT (A):
The appellant alleged that the CIT (A) passed the orders without providing a due and proper opportunity of hearing, leading to the request for the order to be set aside as being bad in law.

Delay in Filing the Appeal and Condonation of the Same:
There was a delay of 183 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned due to the appellant's acute medical condition preventing timely action. The medical certificates supporting the condition were considered sufficient cause for the delay, leading to the condonation of the delay.