2024 (5) TMI 30 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO for taking case under scrutiny - HELD THAT - We find that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. M/s Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 2017 (11) TMI 127 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that even in the reassessment proceedings issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory. The proposal to reopen an assessment under Section 147 of the Act is to be based on reasons to be recorded by the AO. Such reasons have to be communicated to the Assessee. However, merely because the Assessee participates in the proceedings pursuant to such notice under Section 148 of the Act, it does not obviate the mandatory requirement of the AO having to issue to the Assessee a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act before finalising the order of the reassessment. Hon ble High Court has also considered the decision of Hotel Bluemoon 2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT - thus there being a jurisdictional defect in completing, the reassessment proceedings hence same are held to be invalid. The reassessment proceedings u/s 147 hereby quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Reopening of the case u/s 147 without issuing notice u/s 148
2. Addition made by the Assessing Officer
3. Completing assessment without disposing of objections filed by the appellant
4. Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) in reassessment proceedings

1. Reopening of the case u/s 147 without issuing notice u/s 148:
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in completing the reassessment proceedings without issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. M/s Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. held that the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory even in reassessment proceedings. The Court emphasized that the requirement of such notice is jurisdictional and goes to the root of the matter. The reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid due to the absence of the mandatory notice, leading to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act.

2. Addition made by the Assessing Officer:
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 32,41,640 (11.81% of Rs. 2,74,48,260), which the Ld. CIT (Appeals) confirmed. However, the focus of the appeal shifted towards the procedural irregularities, particularly the lack of statutory notices, leading to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings. As a result, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not the primary subject of the final decision.

3. Completing assessment without disposing of objections filed by the appellant:
The appellant raised objections regarding the completion of the assessment without addressing their concerns. This issue was intertwined with the broader challenge to the reassessment proceedings due to procedural deficiencies. The failure to dispose of the objections filed by the appellant was part of the overall jurisdictional defect identified by the Hon'ble Court, resulting in the invalidation of the reassessment proceedings.

4. Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) in reassessment proceedings:
The absence of a notice u/s 143(2) in the reassessment proceedings was a critical point of contention. The appellant argued that the reassessment scrutiny order was invalid in law due to the Assessing Officer's failure to issue the mandatory notice after the return was filed. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended that the lack of such notice rendered the reassessment proceedings legally infirm. The Hon'ble Court's decision emphasized the mandatory nature of the notice u/s 143(2) even in the context of reassessment, leading to the quashing of the reassessment proceedings.

← Previous Next →