9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Mr. Salman Khan [ 2009 (12) TMI 909 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] – it relates to the operation of 292BB & 292B which was amended w.e.f. 1st April, 2008 and was came into operation prospectively for the A.Y. 1999-2000 - the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable as the provisions of s. 292BB cannot be invoked for the relevant period - As the notice u/s. 143(2) was served beyond the time limit prescribed by the Act, the subsequent scrutiny proceedings are null and void – Decided in favour of assessee. - IT (SS) A No. 16/Hyd/2011 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2014 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, Managing Partner For the Respondent : Sri D. Sudhakar Rao ORDER Per Ash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpleted on 25.02.2005. In the assessment order, an amount of ₹ 68,65,389 was added as undisclosed income of the assessee firm. In appeal, the CIT(A)-I, Hyderabad confirmed the entire addition vide his order in ITA No. 0451/CC-5/CIT(A)-1/04-05 dated 25.08.2008. Thereafter, the assessee went in appeal to the ITAT, Hyderabad and took an additional ground of appeal as below: The Assessing Officer failed to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act as required under the provisions of statute, therefore, the failure on this count is in violation of the statutory provisions of law and assessment so completed is ab initio void. 5. This Tribunal set aside the entire case to the file of the CIT(A) by giving the following reasons: 3. At ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment was null and void in view of the non-issue of notice under section 143(2) in time. It was stated that the amendment to section 292BB of the Act cannot have retrospective effect. 8. The CIT(A) observed that a plain reading of the Act reveals that the said notice in the year in question was to be issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which the block return was filed by the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that the notice could have been issued up to 31.08.2004, however, the same was issued in February, 2005 and this was clearly late as per the statute. He further observed that during the assessment proceedings and even during the appeal proceedings undertaken earlier, the assessee did not object to the late issue of n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment to procedural law is applicable from the date on which it is sought to be applied, so that it could be taken into consideration for all pending assessments and appeals. The CIT(A) stated that an amendment to a procedural section does not take effect retrospectively. However, it does take effect from the date of amendment i.e. the date it is brought into operation and the amendment is then applicable to all pending assessments and appeal cases as on the date it is brought into operation. Hence, the CIT(A) concluded that this implies that starting from 01.04.2008, section 292BB of the Act would apply to all pending assessment and appeal proceedings regardless of assessment year in question. The CIT(A) held that in the current case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of section 292BB are prospective. 3. Having accepted the factual position that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed, he ought to have held that the assessment framed was not valid. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) further was not justified in confirming the other grounds on merit when the directions of the Tribunal to him were to dispose of the additional ground of appeal, which is legal in nature and that too without giving reasons thereafter and without considering the material and evidence on record. 13. The Managing Partner of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of section 292BB of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2003 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 158BC of the Act. Further, in the case of CIT vs. Mr. Salman Khan in ITA(L) No. 2362 of 2009, the Bombay High Court held as under: Following substantial questions of law are sought to be raised in the appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in cancelling the assessment order by holding that the assessmentframed u/s. 143(3)/147 cannot be held to be a valid assessment as the AO has not assumed jurisdiction by issue of notice u/s. 143(2) for completion of the assessment? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that sections 292BB and 292B were amended w.e.f. 01/04/2008 and are not ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
