9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 15 - HC - Income TaxLegality of assessment order - no notice under Section 143(2) or 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was served on the assessee - ITAT quashed assessment order as being illegal and void ab initio - Held that - The appellant could not show before us that it had produced before the Tribunal any such material, which could have proved, beyond any shadow of doubt, that notices, under Sections 142(3) and 142(1), were, indeed, issued to the assessee-respondent herein and served upon the assessee-respondent herein as the appellant claims. At any rate when the assessee had denied receipt of notice, imperative it was, on the part of the dept. to produce requisite materials and, if available, such person(s), who had sent the notices as had been claimed by the Revenue. Nothing of the sort was, however, done by the appellant. Thus finding reached by the Tribunal, cannot be described as perverse. In favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order without serving notices under Section 143(2) or 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the assessment order was barred by limitation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assessment Order Without Serving Notices: The primary issue revolves around whether the assessment order for the assessment year 2002-2003 was valid in the absence of proper service of notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. - Facts and Contentions: - The assessee filed her return on 26.03.2003, which was processed on 03.09.2003. The Revenue claimed that notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee on 01.03.2004. However, the assessee contended that the notices received did not bear her PAN number or address. - The Assessing Officer (AO) issued further notices on 27.12.2004 and 15.02.2005, but the assessee did not respond, leading to an ex parte assessment under Section 144 on 31.03.2005. - Tribunal's Findings: - The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the PAN numbers and addresses on the notices. The notices bore PAN No. AGNPG 1745K and were addressed to a different address, while the assessee's PAN was ACKPG 5721G. - The Tribunal observed that the acknowledgement slip mentioned the assessment year as 2001-2002, not 2002-2003, which created doubt about the actual service of the notices. - The Tribunal emphasized that the initial onus to prove the service of notice is on the Revenue, which was not discharged satisfactorily in this case. - Conclusion: - The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was illegal and void ab initio due to the failure to serve proper notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1). 2. Whether the Assessment Order was Barred by Limitation: The second issue concerns whether the assessment order was made within the statutory period. - Facts and Contentions: - The assessee argued that the assessment order dated 31.03.2005 was barred by limitation, as it should have been completed by 25.03.2005, within two years from the date of filing the return. - Tribunal's Findings: - The Tribunal did not specifically address the limitation issue in detail, as it had already declared the assessment order void ab initio due to improper service of notices. - Conclusion: - Given that the assessment order was declared void ab initio, the limitation issue became moot. Final Judgment: - The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal's findings were based on material facts and were not perverse. - The court noted that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the proper service of notices. - Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was maintained, declaring the assessment order illegal and void ab initio. Costs: - The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
