2017 (2) TMI 73 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment u/s 144 without issuing notice - best judgment assessment - Held that - Revenue accepted findings of CIT(A) with regard to requirement of notice and did not challenge that. Once requirement of notice was held mandatory and this was surrendered by Revenue by not challenging the same before Tribunal, assessment made without giving notice under Section 142(1) of Act, 1961, was patently illegal. It could not have been assailed by Revenue before Tribunal in absence of any challenge to this findings of CIT(A) on ground no. 5. Tribunal has erred in law in not considering this aspect of the matter. We, therefore, answer question 1 in favour of Assessee and against Revenue

Issues:
1. Appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 arising from a judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to Assessment Year 2004-05.
2. Two substantial questions of law admitted in the appeal.
3. Best judgment assessment made by the Assessing Officer.
4. Grounds raised before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the subsequent decision.
5. Appeal by Revenue before the Tribunal challenging the order of CIT(A).
6. Consideration of grounds by the Tribunal and the legal errors identified.
7. Final decision and outcome of the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stemmed from a judgment and order issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the Assessment Year 2004-05. Two substantial questions of law were admitted for consideration, including issues related to the maintainability of the appeal by the Revenue and the reliability of the books of account maintained by the assessee.

2. The best judgment assessment made by the Assessing Officer was challenged by the Assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the grounds of non-issuance of mandatory statutory notices under relevant sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the Assessee, emphasizing the necessity of issuing proper notices before conducting assessments.

3. Following the decision of the CIT(A), the Revenue appealed before the Tribunal, contesting the order. However, the Revenue did not challenge the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the requirement of notices under the Act. The Tribunal erred in not considering this crucial aspect, leading to an illegal assessment due to the absence of mandatory notices.

4. The Tribunal's failure to address the fundamental issue of the mandatory notice requirement rendered the assessment patently illegal. Consequently, the Court ruled in favor of the Assessee, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the order of the CIT(A). The appeal was allowed, and the Assessee was awarded costs throughout the proceedings.

This detailed analysis highlights the procedural and substantive aspects of the legal judgment, focusing on the issues raised, decisions made at different stages of the appeal process, and the final outcome in favor of the Assessee based on the legal errors identified in the assessment process.

← Previous Next →