9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .05.2005 - the notice u/s 143(2) was served on 03.11.2006 - The time gap between the date of filing of return and the date of service of notice is more than 12 months - the notice is barred by limitation in terms of the time limit prescribed u/s 143(2) of the Act – thus, the order of the Ao set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 636/Coch/2008 - - - Dated:- 7-3-2014 - Shri N. R. S. Ganesan, JM B. R. Baskaran, AM,JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri S. Mahadevan For the Respondent : Smt. Lata V. Kumar, Jr. DR ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, AM: The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31st March 2008 passed by the ld CIT(A)-IV, Kochi and it relates to the AY 2001-02. 2 This appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed its return of income in response to the said notice on 6th May 2005. The ld counsel submitted that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is required to be served on the assessee within 12 months from the date of filing of the return. The ld counsel further submitted that the assessee has not been served with a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. However, in the assessment order, the AO has stated that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 3.11.2006. Even if the date of issue mentioned in the assessment order is considered as correct for a moment, then also the said notice is barred by limitation, since it was issued after the expiry of 12 months from the date of filing of the return. Accordingly, he submitted that the assessment is requ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tracts of AOPs ownership in the property, (ii) cost of construction, period of investment and (iii) method of segregation of sale consideration of land building. Case reported to 20.112006 at 11 am. Notice u/s 143(2) issued. Below the above noting, as proof of evidence that the AR was present, his signature has been obtained. From the said noting it is clear that the facts leading to reopening were brought to the notice of the appellant and it is after this discussion on 30.11.2006 that notice u/s 143(2) dated 30.11.2006 is seen to have been issued and accepted by the appellant. The reason for reopening was thus brought to the knowledge of the appellant. Moreover, as directed in the notice u/s 143(2) dated 30.11.2006, the AR appeare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee on 03.11.2006. Though there was some dispute regarding service of notice, it is submitted that for the purpose of this appeal there was service of notice under Section 142(1) of the Act which according to the assessee is bad in law. On going through the provisions of sec. 143(2)(ii) of the Act, the notice is beyond the time specified under the said provisions. Hence further proceedings cannot be taken against the assessee. A careful reading of the observations made by Hon ble High Court would show that the Hon ble High Court has made its mind very clear that the proceedings cannot be taken against the assessee, if the notice issued u/s 143(2)(ii) is beyond the time specified under the said provisions. 6. The Ld A.R has poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
