2015 (10) TMI 1480

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssment year (A.Y.) 2005-06 vide order dated December 29, 2010. 2. The principal issue arising in the instant case is the maintainability or otherwise in law of the assessment proceedings initiated vide notice under section 148 dated March 30, 2010 ; the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) having quashed the said proceedings on the basis that the said notice is bad in law. Cases of the respective parties 3. The assessee's case, which found acceptance by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), is that the impugned notice under section 148 cannot be considered as valid for want of satisfaction of the condition of section 148(2) inasmuch as the reason/s for its issue were recorded on March 31, 2010 (copy on record). C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arch 31, 2010, their recording is complete on being signed by him on March 31, 2010, i.e., the date subscribed to the sheet recording the same. This is why an affidavit by the Assessing Officer to the effect that the reason/s were in fact dictated on March 30, 2010, sought to be placed on record by the learned Departmental representative (DR), was considered irrelevant and, accordingly, denied permission by the Bench during hearing. The same rather proves the assessee's case against the Revenue's action. It is only upon affixing his signature on the said sheet of typed paper that renders it as a valid document in law. For all we know, the Assessing Officer may have been in possession of the relevant information or the material, and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction 147, is, accordingly, missing in the present case. True, the notice under section 148, if signed by the Assessing Officer on March 31, 2010 instead of March 30, 2010, i.e., a day later, would have conferred validity to its issue and, resultantly, to the reassessment proceedings. The same may though appear odd inasmuch as a later action, i.e., in time, would be valid, as against the earlier one, which is not, yet would not in any manner, to our mind, bestow validity in law to the notice issued without adhering strictly to the procedural requirements of the provision. That is, the same cannot be regarded as an irregularity, concern as to it does with the deficiency in the very process of assumption of jurisdiction to assess (or reasses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X