9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act as redundant. The legislature does not enact anything in the statute without any meaning or purpose Thus, In our considered opinion a block return which is filed beyond the time-limit prescribed in the notice but before completion of the assessment is a valid return and the same cannot be ignored by the AO. We find that the AO has duly taken into consideration the block return filed by the assessee. He has duly taken into consideration the income and the other facts disclosed by the assessee in the block return. From the assessment order it is not revealed that the AO has treated the return filed by the assessee as invalid or non est. Thus, we find no force in the arguments of the ld DR that in the instant case no valid return was filed by the assessee. In the above situation, the issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Smt Bandana Gogoi v. CIT [ 2007 (1) TMI 110 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] held that a return filed for the block period cannot be interfered by the AO without issuance of notice under s. 143(2) of the Act. Hence, respectfully following the same we have no hesitation in cancelling the impugned order of block assessment. We order accordingly. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y any stretch of imagination. Once the return is not valid, there is no requirement at all to issue notice under s. 143(2) of the Act and none of the decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative is applicable to the facts of the case. In the group case of Parth Aluminium Ltd. in appellate order No. CIT(A)-I/CC. 1(4)/175/2000-01 dt. 22nd Oct., 2002, on the issue, I have held as under : "I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Authorised Representative and I have also gone through the case law relied upon by him. To appreciate the position correctly, I have also gone through the entire case records of the appellant carefully. I find that after the search in appellant's case, a notice under s. 158BC of IT Act, 1961 dt. 31st May, 2000 was served on the appellant on 2nd June, 2000 whereby it was called upon to file return of income for the block period within 45 days of receipt of the notice. This period of 45 days is the maximum period allowable for filing of return as per cl. (a)(ii) of s. 158BC of the Act. There is no provision in IT Act which provides for filing of return in response to notice under s. 158BC after a period of 45 days. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Group decided by Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, it has been held that a notice under s. 143(2) has to be issued even if a return is invalid. Thus, the case law relied upon by the appellant are irrelevant to the present case. As the return in this case could not be treated as a valid return, the only option left with the AO was to proceed with assessment by issue of notice under s. 142(1) as provided in cl. (b) of s. 158BC of the Act, which reads as under : (b) The AO shall proceed to determine the undisclosed Income of the block period in the manner laid down in s. 158BB and the provisions of s. 142, sub-ss. (2) and (3) of s. 143, s. 144 and s. 145 shall so far as may be, apply. The AO has no option but to determine undisclosed income whether a return is filed or not or whether the return filed is valid one or not as the return filed was invalid in law. The only way to proceed with determination of income was by way of issue of notice under s. 142 of IT Act, 1961 as provided in cl. (b) of s. 158BC. The AO has proceeded with assessment by issuing a notice as discussed earlier. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the AO and procedure adopted by him is correct and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee before making an assessment under s. 158BC of the Act for the block period. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record. The undisputed facts are that a search and seizure operation under s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee. In pursuance to the same notice under s. 158BC was issued on 31st May, 2000 allowing 45 days time to the assessee to file the block return. No block return was filed within the time allowed under the notice. The return for block period was ultimately filed by the assessee on 10th Nov., 2000. Block assessment was completed by the AO on 30th Jan., 2001. The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that no notice being served on the assessee under s. 143(2) of the Act the order of the block assessment passed by the AO is invalid. The CIT(A) rejected this contention by holding that the return for the block period being filed by the assessee beyond the time-limit allowed under the notice issued under s. 158BC the block return was invalid and hence it is a case of non-furnishing of the return where assessment can be made only a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
