9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Validity of notice under section 142 and jurisdiction of the assessment
Validity of Notice under Section 142: The appeal by the Revenue was against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 1993-94. The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the AO, while the Authorised Representative of the assessee argued that the notice under section 142 should have been issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished. The first notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed period of 12 months, leading to objections from the assessee. The assessee's contention was supported by legal precedents like Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala vs. CIT (1968) and other cases. The Authorised Representative argued that the assessment made based on the notice served after the prescribed period was not valid and without jurisdiction. The learned CIT(A) annulled the assessment, a decision upheld by the tribunal based on legal principles and case laws cited. Jurisdiction of the Assessment: The tribunal considered the rival contentions, relevant material, and cited decisions. Referring to previous cases, it was established that the ITO's jurisdiction depends on a valid notice, and if the notice is served beyond the prescribed period, the entire proceedings become invalid. Citing specific cases like Arasina Hotels Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1997) and Mrs. C. Malathy vs. ITO (2004), it was reiterated that if the notice under section 143(2) is served beyond the time limit, the resultant assessment is not valid. Therefore, based on the legal position and the facts of the case, the tribunal found no fault with the CIT(A)'s decision to annul the assessment. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for issuing notices under the Income Tax Act to maintain the validity and jurisdiction of assessments, as failure to do so can render the entire assessment process invalid.
|
