9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1688 - AT - Income TaxValidity of reassessment proceedings - non issuance and non service of notice under section 143(2) - HELD THAT - In the case of ACIT vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2013 (10) TMI 218 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has held that where no notice under section 143(2) has been issued while making assessment u/s 143(3) r/w section 147, the assessment so framed is bad in law as the AO can not proceed to make an enquiry on the return filed in compliance to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and thus dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by holding that no substantial question of law arose out of the appeal of the Revenue. Similarly, in the case of CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal 2019 (8) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT the Hon ble Apex Court has held that no notice under section 143(2) was ever issued by the Department, therefore, the finding rendered by High Court and the Tribunal and the conclusion arrived at were correct and there is no reason to take a different view in the matter. Thus, assessment proceedings and the consequent reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 are bad in law as the mandatory notices under section 143(2) was not issued. Accordingly, we quash the proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147 and also the consequent reassessment order. Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of notice under Section 148 of the Act 2. Reassessment of income under Section 147 of the Act 3. Withdrawal of deduction for depreciation 4. Non-issuance and non-service of statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of notice under Section 148 of the Act The assessee challenged the validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee as it was a jurisdictional and legal issue. The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions supporting the admission of the additional ground. The Tribunal ultimately quashed the assessment order as it was found to be without jurisdiction due to the non-issuance of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Issue 2: Reassessment of income under Section 147 of the Act The assessee contended that the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was invalid due to the non-issuance of the statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments of both parties and the assessment records, held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) without issuing the notice under Section 143(2) was invalid and liable to be quashed. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents to support its decision. Issue 3: Withdrawal of deduction for depreciation The assessee also challenged the withdrawal of deduction for depreciation. However, this issue was not specifically addressed in the detailed analysis provided in the judgment. Issue 4: Non-issuance and non-service of statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act The core issue in this case was the non-issuance and non-service of the statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal, after multiple hearings and considering the arguments of both parties, concluded that the assessment proceedings and the reassessment order were bad in law due to the failure to issue the mandatory notices under Section 143(2). Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings initiated by the AO under Section 147 and the consequent reassessment order. The additional ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and the appeal was partly allowed. Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the jurisdictional issue of non-issuance of the statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, leading to the quashing of the assessment and reassessment orders. The Tribunal relied on various legal precedents to support its decision, ultimately favoring the assessee on the jurisdictional issue.
|
