9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 33,41,230/- made on account of salary and liaisoning expenses. is not correct in law and facts. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,40,000/- made on account of web designing. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 58,10,000/- made on account of share application money. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of ₹ 5,87,607/- made on account f current liabilities. 5(a). The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any / all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal. 3. The grounds raised in the Assessee s Cross Objection read as under:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned assessment order on the ground that the same was passed without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without serving the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e I.T. Act, 1961, aftger making various additions. 5. Against the aforesaid assessment order dated 11.12.2009, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 13.7.2011 has partly allowed the appeal of the asseseee. 6. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal and assessee is in Cross Objection before the tribunal. 7. At the threshold, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that the Cross Objection filed by the assessee has involved the legal issue and therefore, the same may be first decided. Hence, we first deal with the Assessee s Cross Objection and adjudicate upon the legal issue. 8. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued only on the issue involved in ground nos. 1 to 2 relating assuming jurisdiction as per law and without serving the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and exparte assessment order has been passed. He submitted that the assessee has filed his written submissions on this issue before the Ld. First Appellate Authority but he has also rejected the request of the assessee in routine manner. He filed the copy of small Paper Book before us containing pages 1 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of payment receipt for Form No. 32 dated 20.5.2008; Copy of Bill dated 20.5.2008 raised by M/s S. Chandak Co. for consultation and ROC fees paid for From No. 18; Copy of challan dated 25.2.2009 for Form No. 18; Copy of Form No. 18 showing change of address w.e.f. 2.2.2009; copies of the list of the documents requested from department s file after inspection along with fee paid for the same; copy of order sheet entries as supplied by the AO and the copy of PAN database supplied by the AO. We find that these documents shows that assessee filed the return from the address i.e. 41, LIG flats, Pocket-3, Dwarka, New Delhi on 30.10.2007; letter dated 18.11.2010 relating to copies of list of the documents requested from Department s file after inspection alongwith fee paid for the same mentioning the address of the assesse at 305, Agarwal Arcade, Plot No. 6, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 078 addressed to the ITO Ward 15(3), New Delhi; From the order sheet recorded during assessment proceedings filed at page no. 13 of the Paper Book shows that 15.9.2008 Notice u/s. 142(1) issued. However, the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) in their respective orders mentioned that the Notice u/s. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turn be treated as fresh return--- Reassessment proceedings completed despite assessee filing affidavit denying serviced of notice under section 143(2)---- Assessing Officer not representing before Commissioner (Appeals) that notice had been issued---- Reassessment order invalid due to want of notice under section 143(2)--- Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 143, 147, 148(1), prov.----ITO v. R.K. GUPTA [308 ITR 49 (Delhi)Tribu., DIT vs. SOCIETY FOR WORLDWIDE INTERBANK FINANCIAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS in ITA 441 OF 2010 (Delhi High Court) [(2010) 323 ITR 249] The notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 23-03-2000 while the return was filed on 27-03-2000. Even if it was issued on 27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment. DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where the assessee was not served a notice under s.143(2) of the Act. The reassessment made in such a case was invalid S.143(2) and s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the capital gains arising on the transfer of property for assessment and that admittedly the assessee had requested the officer to accept the original return as a return filed in response to Section 148 of the Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part of the Revenue from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory one as held by the Apex Court. Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (Del) Held: The service of notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 148. JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. - 2008-09 Reassessment order passed under section 143(3)/148 without issue of a valid notice under section 143(2) was illegal. CIT vs. Pawan Gupta Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del) Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in Para 38 of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
