9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CO No.99/Mds/2011 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2012 - Dr. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JJ. Department by : Shri KEB Rengarajan, Jr. Standing Counsel Assessee by : Shri Karunakaran, Advocate O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the Assessee are directed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)XII, Chennai, dated 02.2.2011. The relevant Asst. Year is 1998-99. The proceedings are under sec.143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.1997, the Assessee filed a declaration under Voluntary Disclosure Scheme, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as VDIS) and declared an income of Rs.32,45,215/- in the Assessment Year 1994-95 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia, he also contended that he had already filed return of income before the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 1994-95. Not only this, the Assessee also filed written submissions challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings on the ground that no valid notice under sec.143(2) of the I.T.Act was issued within one year of filing of the return of income. The Assessee also raised a contention that since the amount in question belongs to the Assessment Year 19994-95 as the capital gains had arisen because of a sale deed executed on 13.3.1994, the same could not be computed in the Assessment Year 1997-98. 7. The Assessing Officer did not accept the arguments of the Assessee. By negating various pleas, the Assessing Authority obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fate of the Cross Objection filed, we are taking up the grounds raised in Cross Objections firstly. 9. Arguing in support of the objections, the learned Counsel for the Assessee before us has submitted that on facts, the Assessing Officer has no where negated his plea of validity of the notice under sec.143(2) of the of the I.T.Act. As per learned A.R., the only reason given by the Assessing Officer is that the Assessee s right to raise the plea has been waived off since the same was not raised in the earlier assessment proceedings before the ITAT., which culminated in remand order dated 07.8.2007. It has been further contended that in the Cross Objections, he has raised a substantial legal plea which does not require either any new fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e up for consideration in CIT v. M. Chellappan[2006] 281 ITR 444, Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us was a party (P.D. Dinakaran I) applying the ratio laid down by the Punbjab and Haryana high Court in Vipan Khanna v. CIT[2002] 255 ITR 220 (P H), held as follows (page 115) : admittedly, no notices under section 143(2) of the Act were served on the assessees within the stipulated period of twelve months and, therefore, the proceedings under section 143 of the Act come to an end and the matter becomes final In view of the above the first question now raised, therefore, stands concluded in favour of the Assessee. In view of the above conclusion in respect of question No.1, the question of non-furnishing of copies of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
