2022 (10) TMI 1030 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of notice - Reasons are handwritten and there is no signature of the AO thereon - HELD THAT - As on verification of the assessment record including the order sheets from the date of recording of reasons clearly reveals that the order sheets by the AO from recording of reasons, issuing of notice u/s 148 and notices u/s 142(1) are handwritten and there is no signature of the AO thereon. Thus, safely hold that the AO neither complied with the statutory requirements and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act nor complied with the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of reassessment proceedings. Consequently, as compelled to hold that the AO did not have valid jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings and to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, reassessment proceedings and the impugned reassessment order are bad in law. Accordingly, the same are quashed and the consequent reassessment order made u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) of the Act is annulled and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Validity of notice u/s 148 and assessment proceedings

Issue 1: Validity of notice u/s 148 and assessment proceedings
The appeal was filed against the order dated 06.05.2019 of the CIT(A), Meerut, concerning the Assessment Year 2010-11. The appellant did not appear for the hearing, and the notice issued to the appellant was returned by the Postal Authorities with a remark 'lene se inkar.' The Judicial Member proceeded ex parte with the adjudication after hearing the argument of the Sr. DR. The main contention of the appellant was that the notice u/s 148 was not issued or served because the order sheet for issuing the notice was not signed. The Sr. DR supported the validity of the assessment proceedings and provided relevant assessment records. The ITAT, Vishakhapatanam, in a similar case, held that non-furnishing of reasons to the assessee is fatal to the reassessment made u/s 147 of the Act. The AO in the present case did not comply with the statutory requirements for issuing the notice u/s 148, leading to the conclusion that the reassessment proceedings and the reassessment order were bad in law. Consequently, the notice u/s 148, reassessment proceedings, and the reassessment order were quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed on ground No.2.

Conclusion
The notice u/s 148 of the Act and the subsequent reassessment proceedings were found to be invalid due to the AO's failure to comply with the statutory requirements for recording reasons and issuing the notice. As a result, the reassessment order was annulled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed on ground No.2. The other grounds of the assessee were not adjudicated upon as the notice u/s 148 was quashed, leading to the overall allowance of the appeal filed by the assessee.