2024 (1) TMI 1182 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) - Notice issued u/s 143(2) as time barred - HELD THAT - We have perused the assessment record. We find that there is no notice dated 29.03.2010, is available on record. This fact is fairly admitted by Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that the only notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.10.2010. However, as per record, in response to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee had filed return of income on 30.09.2009, declaring NIL income. Therefore, we find merit into the contention of the assessee that notice u/s 143(2) dated 21.10.2010 is barred by time. The assessment order in consequence of time barred notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, is thus bad in law. Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Validity of assessment order u/s 143(3).
2. Timeliness of notice issued u/s 143(2).
3. Requirement of prior approval u/s 153D for assessment order.
4. Presence of incriminating material for additions made.
5. Treatment of depreciation of Gym Equipments.
6. Consideration of explanations, evidences, and materials on record.

Validity of assessment order u/s 143(3):
The appeal challenged the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) as illegal, time-barred, and without jurisdiction. It was contended that the additions made were unjust and against natural justice. The appellant argued that the order lacked the prior approval of the ADIT/JCIT as required u/s 153D. However, the Tribunal found that the notice u/s 143(2) was time-barred, rendering the assessment order bad in law. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, making other issues academic.

Timeliness of notice issued u/s 143(2):
The appellant contended that the notice u/s 143(2) was time-barred, as the only notice available on record was dated 21.10.2010, after the assessee had already filed the return of income on 30.09.2009. The Tribunal agreed that the notice was indeed beyond the time limit, as per Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the assessment order based on the time-barred notice was deemed bad in law, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal.

Requirement of prior approval u/s 153D for assessment order:
The appellant argued that the assessment order u/s 143(3) was illegal and bad in law due to the absence of prior approval from the ADIT/JCIT as mandated u/s 153D. However, the Tribunal's decision on the timeliness of the notice u/s 143(2) rendered this issue academic, as the assessment order was already deemed invalid on that basis.

Presence of incriminating material for additions made:
It was contended that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the additions made and sustained were without jurisdiction and against the law. However, this argument became moot following the Tribunal's decision on the timeliness of the notice u/s 143(2), which invalidated the assessment order.

Treatment of depreciation of Gym Equipments:
The appellant challenged the addition of Rs.1,93,569 for the depreciation of Gym Equipments used for business purposes, claiming that the evidence supporting the depreciation was ignored and rejected. However, this issue was not specifically addressed in the Tribunal's decision, as the focus was on the timeliness of the notice u/s 143(2) and the consequent invalidity of the assessment order.

Consideration of explanations, evidences, and materials on record:
The appellant argued that the explanations, evidences, and materials presented were not properly considered and interpreted by the authorities, leading to unjustified additions. While this issue was raised, the Tribunal primarily focused on the timeliness of the notice u/s 143(2) and the resulting invalidity of the assessment order, which rendered other grounds raised by the assessee as academic.

← Previous Next →