2017 (11) TMI 445 - AT - Income Tax

Non service of notice u/s 143(2) upon assessee within the period of limitation - validity of assessment - Held that - Revenue failed to produce any evidence of service of the notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act upon assessee within the period of limitation. Therefore, the assessment order so passed is without jurisdiction and void abinitio and is liable to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of investment in M/s Unitech Limited
2. Enhancement of profit on estimated basis
3. Addition of unsecured loan received
4. Challenge to assessment order validity

Analysis:

1. Addition of Investment:
The appellant challenged the addition of ?8,00,000 on account of investment in M/s Unitech Limited. Both the Assessing Officer (A.O.) and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition without considering the documentary evidence filed by the assessee. The appellant argued that the evidence was not reviewed during the proceedings, leading to an erroneous decision.

2. Enhancement of Profit:
The appellant contested the enhancement of profit from ?1,58,879 to ?10,25,000 on an estimated basis, based on sales figures. The A.O. applied an 8% profit rate, while the appellant argued for no discrepancy in purchase or sales, challenging the 10% rate used. The appellant claimed the addition was unjustified and the rejection of books without discrepancies was unwarranted.

3. Addition of Unsecured Loan:
The addition of ?8,18,495 on account of an unsecured loan received from Mr. Dushyant was also disputed by the appellant. Both the A.O. and CIT(A) confirmed the addition without reviewing the documentary evidence provided during the proceedings. The appellant argued that the evidence was overlooked, leading to an erroneous decision.

4. Challenge to Assessment Order Validity:
The appellant raised an additional ground challenging the assessment order's validity, claiming it was passed without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The appellant argued that no notice under section 143(2) was served within the prescribed time limit, rendering the assessment invalid. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their argument regarding the requirement for proper notice service.

The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the service of notices under section 143(2) to the appellant, highlighting different addresses used and lack of evidence of service within the statutory period. The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence of notice service, leading to the assessment order being deemed without jurisdiction and void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order, resulting in the deletion of all additions. The decisions of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the procedural irregularities in the assessment process, ultimately leading to the assessment order being declared void and all additions being deleted. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper notice service and adherence to statutory timelines in conducting assessments.