9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1550 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Revision u/s 263 - non-service of notice u/s 263 - HELD THAT - The non-service of notice u/s 263 of the Act does not in this case render the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, bad in law. We now see whether there was violation of principles of natural justice can be cured by setting aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to give the assessee company a fresh opportunity of being heard. - We set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT with a direction to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and pass a fresh order u/s 263, in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to appear before the ld. Pr. CIT within 30 days of receipt of the order - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Issues involved:
1. Notice under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act not issued to the assessee. 2. Whether the order passed under Section 263 without serving notice is valid. 3. Violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Setting aside the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh adjudication. Analysis: Issue 1: Notice under Section 263 not issued to the assessee The appeal challenges the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2009-10, on the grounds that no notice was issued to the assessee. The assessee contends that the absence of a notice renders the order legally flawed. The Counsel for the assessee cites judgments supporting this argument. Issue 2: Validity of order passed without serving notice The Department argues that the notice was sent to the address provided by the assessee in the return of income, and failure to receive the notice does not invalidate the order. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, it is emphasized that the essence of Section 263 is granting an opportunity of hearing, not specifically issuing a show cause notice. Issue 3: Violation of principles of natural justice The assessee claims that the order is unsustainable due to the non-service of notice under Section 263. However, the order was served through affixation, which is considered valid. The Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan is referenced to support this stance. Issue 4: Setting aside the matter for fresh adjudication Considering the facts presented, the Tribunal sets aside the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to appear within 30 days. The Tribunal's decision is based on a detailed analysis of the address changes of the assessee company and the legal provisions regarding the time limit for passing orders under Section 263. Conclusion: The Tribunal allows the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for the Commissioner of Income Tax to provide the assessee with an opportunity for a fresh hearing and to pass a new order in compliance with the law. This comprehensive analysis delves into the various issues raised in the appeal and provides a detailed examination of the legal arguments and judgments cited by both parties, culminating in the Tribunal's decision to set aside the matter for fresh adjudication.
|
