9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of six assessment years u/s. 153(1)(a) of the Act. Coupled with this, the hon'ble apex court's decision in CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal [ 2019 (8) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT] holds that issuance of a valid 143(2) notice is very much a condition precedent for framing Section 143(3) assessment in the year of search. We thus find no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order under challenge quashing the impugned assessment. - I.T.A. No. 1570/HYD/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-3-2022 - A. Mohan Alankamony, Member (A) And S.S. Godara, Member (J) For the Appellant : Solgy Kottaram, CIT-DR For the Respondents : P. Murali Mohan Rao, AR ORDER Per S.S. Godara, JM This Revenue's appeal for AY. 2010-11 arises from the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and service of notice u/s. 143(2) commences a scrutiny assessment in regular cases, while in search cases, the assessments falling u/s. 153A commences with the issue of notice u/s. 153A of the IT Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decision in the case of CIT vs. Pavan Gupta (2009) 181 Taxmann 299 (Del) wherein it was held that when the Assessing Officer accepts the return filed by the assessee after the search without verification, there was no need for issue of notice u/s. 143(2). Here the expression so far as it may appearing in section 153A comes into operation. 5. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) is not required has found judicial approval in the case of Ashok Chad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary . 4. Learned CIT-DR vehemently reiterated the Revenue's foregoing pleadings that the issuance of Section 143(2) notice is nowhere mandatory in Section 153A proceedings initiated in furtherance to a search in light of the various case law cited therein. We find no merit in the Revenue's instant grievance since it has come on record that this is AY. 2010-11 before us where the search itself was conducted on 11-03-2010. This is the year of search in other words not covered under the specified period of six assessment years u/s. 153(1)(a) of the Act. Coupled with this, the hon'ble apex court's decision in CIT Vs. Laxman Das ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
