9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 870 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the assessment proceedings on delayed issuance of notice u/s 143(2) - notice u/s 143(2) was issued after the time line as mentioned in the first proviso to section 143(2) - HELD THAT - The notice u/s 143(2) has to mandatorily issued with the period of three months from the end of financial year in which the return was filed but it was issued late. Therefore in our considered view the same is barred by limitation. The mere participation of the assessee in the proceedings before AO would not cure the defect or the provisions of section 292BB would not come to the rescue of the revenue. Even the decision relied by the CIT(A) is in favour of the assessee. As in the decision CIT Vs Laxman Das Khandelwal 2019 (8) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT has categorical observation that section 292BB cures the infirmities in the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and not the absence of notice. Hon ble Apex Court in Hotel Blue Moon 2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT held that issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory for scrutiny assessment even if the assessments are after search u/s 132(1) of the Act Accordingly we set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue by holding that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is barred by limitation and therefore the consequent assessment framed is also invalid and is quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue presented in this case revolves around the validity of the assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to the delayed issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Specifically, the question is whether the notice, issued beyond the statutory time limit, invalidates the assessment proceedings or if such a defect can be cured under Section 292BB of the Act. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents The primary legal provisions under consideration are Sections 143(2) and 292BB of the Income Tax Act. Section 143(2) mandates the issuance of a notice within a specific time frame after the filing of a return, which is crucial for initiating scrutiny assessments. The Finance Act, 2021 amended this time frame to three months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed. Section 292BB, on the other hand, addresses procedural defects in the service of notice, provided the assessee has participated in the proceedings. Precedents considered include the Supreme Court's judgments in Hotel Blue Moon and CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal, which elucidate the mandatory nature of notice issuance under Section 143(2) and the scope of Section 292BB in curing procedural defects. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Tribunal analyzed the facts and legal precedents to determine the applicability of Section 292BB in cases where the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal noted that while Section 292BB can cure defects related to the manner of notice service, it does not extend to curing the complete absence or untimely issuance of a notice. Key Evidence and Findings The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 143(2) was indeed issued after the statutory deadline, a fact undisputed by both parties. The assessee's participation in the proceedings was acknowledged, but the Tribunal emphasized that such participation does not rectify the fundamental defect of delayed notice issuance. Application of Law to Facts The Tribunal applied the legal principles established in the cited precedents to the facts of the case. It concluded that the delayed issuance of the notice under Section 143(2) rendered the assessment proceedings invalid, as Section 292BB could not cure this defect. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from those where no notice was issued, emphasizing that the defect in timing was equally fatal. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Tribunal considered the arguments of both the assessee and the Revenue. The assessee argued that the delayed notice invalidated the proceedings, supported by the Supreme Court's interpretation in Laxman Das Khandelwal. The Revenue contended that Section 292BB cured the defect due to the assessee's participation. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, finding the Revenue's reliance on Section 292BB misplaced in the context of delayed notice issuance. Conclusions The Tribunal concluded that the notice under Section 143(2) was barred by limitation, and therefore, the subsequent assessment proceedings were invalid. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal's significant holding is that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed time frame is mandatory for the validity of assessment proceedings. Section 292BB does not cure defects related to the timing of notice issuance, only defects in the manner of service. Core Principles Established The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that statutory timelines for notice issuance under Section 143(2) are mandatory and non-compliance renders the proceedings invalid. Participation by the assessee does not cure such defects. Final Determinations on Each Issue The Tribunal determined that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the permissible time limit, rendering the assessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the assessment order.
|
