9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the proceedings - HELD THAT:- In the present case, all the facts are emanating clearly from the assessment order and no new facts have been produced by the assessee nor are being called for determination in the present proceedings. Consequently, the legal ground is liable to be admitted and we do so. A perusal of the provision of Section 142(1) clearly shows that the AO can issue a notice u/s.142(1) calling upon the assessee to file his return of income only when the assessee has not filed his original return of income under the provision of Section 139(1). In the present case, the assessee has filed his original return on 01.10.2015 which is a return u/s.139(1) and the said return has also been processed u/s.143(1) on 02.06.2016. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the appeal of the assessee, it was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the assessee is the Proprietor of Sri Amman Jewellers at Madurai. On 01.03.2015, one Mr. J. Sivaram Subramanium was intercepted by the Inspector of Police, Nadu Vattam Police Station, Nilgiris and an amount of ₹ 18,11,000/- was seized from him. The said Mr. Sivaram Subramanium claimed to be travelling from Bangalore to Koodalur. He also claimed to be a relative of the assessee herein. It was also informed that the said money belonged to the assessee herein. It was a submission by the learned Authorized Representative that these are undisputed facts. It was further a submission that admittedly the amount of ₹ 18,11,000/- found with Mr. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the notice issued u/s.153A was unsustainable. For this proposition, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meeta Gutgutia reported in [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) wherein it has been held as follows: I. Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Search and seizure (General Principles) Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and 2004-05 High Court in impugned order held that invocation of section 153A to re-open concluded assessments of assessment years earlier to year of search was not justified in absence of incriminating material found during search qua each such earlier assessment year Whether SLP against said decision was to be dismissed Held, y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded assessments of the Assessment Years earlier to the year on search is not justified in the absence of incriminating materials found during search qua each such earlier Assessment Years. In the present case, no such incriminating material has been found qua the Assessment Year 2011-12. 8. This being so, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Meeta Gutgutia referred to supra, it is held that the notice issued u/s.153A for the Assessment Year 2011-12 is unsustainable in law and consequently the assessment passed as a consequence of the said notice issued u/s.153A stands quashed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2872/Chny ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin the time prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was a submission that the original return for the relevant assessment year had been filed by the assessee on 01.10.2015 and that was a return u/s.139(1) and therefore the notice issued u/s.142(1) itself calling for the return of the assessee was an invalid notice. It was further a submission that as the notice u/s.143(2) had been issued beyond the prescribed time limit prescribed under the Act, consequently the assessment is liable to be annulled. It was a submission by the learned Authorized Representative that this was a legal ground which is being raised for the first time before the Tribunal and no new facts were required to be verified in so far as the requisite facts w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an invalid notice and is liable to be quashed and we do so. The assessee having filed a valid return u/s.139(1) on 01.10.2015, the time limit calling for details u/s.143(2) for the purpose of assessment expired on 30.09.2016. However, the notice u/s.143(2) has been issued only on 09.11.2016 which is far beyond the time stipulated under the statute. Consequently, the said notice u/s.143(2) being barred by limitation is liable to be quashed and we do so. As the notice u/s.143(2) has been quashed, the assessment becomes unsustainable and the same stands quashed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2869/Chny/2017 stands allowed. 16. In the result, the two appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.2869 2872/Chny/2017 stand all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
