9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 393 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment - non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) - Held that - From the findings of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A), one thing is apparent that no notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee as the ld. CIT(A) himself has held that mere non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) by itself cannot be said to vitiate the assessment proceedings. In a number of judgments delivered by various Courts and Tribunals, it has been held that service of notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory requirement. See Indus Tower Limited vs. CIT 2017 (6) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Non-issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of the reassessment order due to the non-issue of notice under Section 143(2). Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue raised by the assessee was the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that the absence of such notice vitiates the assessment proceedings. The assessee relied on several judicial precedents, including ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (321 ITR 362), Directorate of Income Tax vs. VR Educational Trust (2013(12) TMI 745), and Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. vs. DGIT (341 ITR 247), among others, to support their contention that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. The Revenue, on the other hand, contended that a notice under Section 142(1) had been issued, and hence, there was no necessity to issue a notice under Section 143(2). The Revenue relied on the Delhi High Court decision in Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation (337 ITR 389) to support its stance. 2. Validity of the reassessment order due to the non-issue of notice under Section 143(2): Upon reviewing the arguments, the Tribunal noted that both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] had acknowledged the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2). The Tribunal emphasized that various courts, including the Delhi High Court in Indus Tower Limited vs. CIT (judgment dated 29.05.2017), have consistently held that the service of notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's decision, which reiterated that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) before the statutory deadline is fatal to the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal further noted that the case law relied upon by the Revenue in Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation had been reviewed and was not applicable in the present case. The Tribunal referenced the Delhi High Court's review order dated 17th August 2011, which clarified that the decision in Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation was not relevant to the issue at hand. The Tribunal also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Pvt. Ltd., which reinforced that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory even in cases covered under Section 148. The Tribunal highlighted that the absence of such notice invalidates the reassessment proceedings. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) rendered the reassessment order void ab initio. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection on this ground and held that the reassessment order was invalid. As a result, the remaining grounds in the cross-objections did not require adjudication. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as infructuous. Order: The cross-objections filed by the assessee were partly allowed, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 02.01.2018.
|
