9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 55.00 lacs. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the tax effect in the appeal filed by the revenue is less than ₹ 20.00 lacs, therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 (F No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) instructing the authorities below that departmental appeal should not be filed before ITAT where the demand/tax effect does not exceed ₹ 20 lacs, therefore, in view of the above CBDT circular, the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Validity of reopening of assessment - no sanction by the JCIT of the Range U/s 151(2) - assessment without issue of notice U/s 143(2) - curable defect u/s 292BB - HELD THAT:- Specific query was raised by the Bench on 16/10/2017, 19/09/2018 and 15/11/2018 giving time to the department for producing the case record to substantiate proper sanction by the JCIT of the Range U/s 151(2) of the Act. However, even after expiry of more than seventeen months when the case was again fixed on 25/3/2019, the department could not produce the evidence of sanction having been issued U/s 151(2) of the Act. Accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing relief in respect of addition made by the A.O. on account of unexplained bank deposits on the basis of additional evidences which were admitted without satisfying the conditions mentioned in Rule 46A of the IT Rules, 1962. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an agriculturist. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold agricultural land jointly owned by four brothers. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee had sold agricultural land which was valued by the Sub-Registrar at an amount higher than the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The A.O. issued notice U/s 148 and in reply to the same, the assessee filed return declaring income from agriculture and bank interest. Since as per the opinion of the assessee, the said agricultural land was not a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act, hence no transaction of sale of agricultural land was shown in the return filed in pursuance to the notice U/s 148 of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the A.O. found that the assessee had so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ady given opportunity to the A.O. by calling a remand report and after seeing all the documents filed before him to the A.O. for his remand report and after considering the same, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of ₹ 55.00 lacs. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. Moreover, the tax effect in the appeal filed by the revenue is less than ₹ 20.00 lacs, therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 (F No. 279/Misc. 142/2007-ITJ(Pt) instructing the authorities below that departmental appeal should not be filed before ITAT where the demand/tax effect does not exceed ₹ 20 lacs, therefore, in view of the above CBDT circular, the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 8. Now we take the C.O. filed by the assessee, wherein following grounds have been taken: 1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the whole proceedings of assessment and liable to be quashed as the notice U/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961 has been issued without proper sanction of the JCIT of the range which is in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department failed to produce. In support of the contention that without proper sanction U/s 151(2) of the Act, before issue of notice U/s 148 of the Act renders such notice to be illegal, the ld AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Sunil Agarwal vs ITO Ward1(3)(3), ITAT Delhi (ii) CIT Jabalpur vs S. Goyanka Lime and Chemical Ltd. Supreme Court of India (iii) ITO Ward 17(4) vs M/s Virat Credit Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 12. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is clear that in respect of issue raised by the assessee. Specific query was raised by the Bench on 16/10/2017, 19/09/2018 and 15/11/2018 giving time to the department for producing the case record to substantiate proper sanction by the JCIT of the Range U/s 151(2) of the Act. However, even after expiry of more than seventeen months when the case was again fixed on 25/3/2019, the department could not produce the evidence of sanction having been issued U/s 151(2) of the Act. Accordingly, considering the judicial pronouncements referred above and applying to the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the notice issued U/s 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings are liable to be quashed in view of the following judicial pronouncements: (i) ACIT v/s Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble SC that issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory even in block assessments. (ii) CIT v/s Salarpur Cold Storage 50 taxmann.com 105 (All. HC): For framing order u/ s 143(3) it is necessary to issue a notice u/ s 143(2) of the Act, and in absence of notice u/s 143(2) the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid. (iii) Travancore Diagnostics P Ltd. v/s ACIT 390 ITR 167 (Kerela HC): Omission to issue notice u/s 143(2) is incurable defect even u/s 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv) PCIT - 08 v/s Jai Shiv Shankar Traders P Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi): Issue of notice u/s 143(2) is not a procedural requirement and is mandatory and completion of assessment without issue of notice u/s 143(2) is fatal to the assessment. In this case return was filed after issuance of notice u/s 142(1) and since no notice was issued u/s 143(2) the assessment was held to be invalid. (v) ITO v/s Neeraj Goel (ITAT Delhi Bench SMC) : Assumption of jurisdiction to frame an assessment or non-assumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
