2017 (5) TMI 415 - AT - Income Tax

Quashing the assessment made u/s 143(3) - legality of service of notice - deemed service of notice - Held that - The assessee had changed its name. Further the assessee had not challenged the service of notice before the Assessing Officer and the assessee participated the assessment proceedings. In such a situation, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in quashing the assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act by the AO which is contrary decision of The Hon ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ramsh Khosla vs. ITO (1983 (12) TMI 35 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court ) wherein held held that notice dispatched by the registered post either not received back or received back with endorsement refused is deemed service.. Thus the appeal of the Revenue is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing cross objection.
2. Validity of assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Service of notice u/s 143(2) within the stipulated time frame.

Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing cross objection:
The Revenue appealed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 1998-99. The assessee filed a Cross Objection (C.O.) regarding additions made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The delay in filing the C.O. was due to uncertainty regarding the necessity of filing it. The AR of the assessee cited legal precedents to support the condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for substantial justice. After considering the arguments and case laws, the delay was condoned, and the ground raised by the assessee in the C.O. was restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

Issue 2: Validity of assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act:
The ld. CIT(A) quashed the assessment made by the AO under section 143(3) due to a delay in serving the notice u/s 143(2). The Revenue contended that the quashing was unwarranted, citing a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It was argued that the change in the assessee's name did not invalidate the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, stating that the assessee did not challenge the service of notice before the AO and participated in the assessment proceedings. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the assessment order u/s 143(3) was upheld.

Issue 3: Service of notice u/s 143(2) within the stipulated time frame:
The ld. CIT(A) found that the notice u/s 143(2) was not validly served within the prescribed time limit, rendering the subsequent assessment order u/s 143(3) without jurisdiction. As a result, the addition made by the AO under section 68 of the Act was deemed unnecessary to adjudicate upon. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the notice dispatched by registered post, even if not received back, should be deemed as served. The Tribunal sided with the Revenue, emphasizing that the change in the assessee's name did not affect the validity of the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur addressed issues related to the condonation of delay in filing a cross objection, the validity of the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, and the service of notice u/s 143(2) within the stipulated time frame. The Tribunal considered legal arguments, case laws, and factual circumstances to reach decisions that balanced the interests of the Revenue and the assessee, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal procedures.