2012 (3) TMI 713

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ving that the notices under section 143(2)/142(1) were not issued in the status of Artificial Juridical person without appreciating the fact that the Proforma of notices under section 143(2)/142(1) are prescribed and there is no column in these notices where the status of the assessee can be mentioned. 2. The order of the CIT(a) be set aside and that of AO be restored. 2. None attended on behalf of the assessee when appeal came up for hearing. Having regard to the issue involved, appeal is decided after hearing the learned CIT-DR. 3. The only issue for consideration relates to assumption of jurisdiction under sec. 143(2)/142(1) of the Act. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the assessee, the Cane Development Council (G .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nulled the assessment. However, he directed the Assessing Officer to take remedial action under sec. 150 of the Act in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the status of Artificial Juridical Person. 5. Before us, the learned CIT-DR submitted that notice issued in the name of the assessee under sec. 143(2) was proper. The Assessing Officer had decided the status as Artificial Juridical Person. Therefore, the issue of notice under sec. 143(2) cannot be said to be bad in law. 6. We have heard the learned CIT-DR and gone through the material available on record. The assessee had filed return of income in the status of Local Authority. Sec. 2(31) of the Income-tax Act defines the person and includes the following:- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he name of the assessee as local authority as indicated in the return of income, assessment can not be framed in the status of artificial juridical person. The learned CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decision of ITAT in the case of ITO vs. Kamalchand, 22 TTJ (All.) 11 for Assessment Year 1978-79. In this case the Revenue sought to change the status from individual to HUF and the AO had no jurisdiction to assess the assessee HUF on the ground that he had not issued notice under sec. 147/148 of the Act. It was held that defect of jurisdiction could not be cured by obtaining consent of the assessee. The facts of the case under consideration are similar to that of the facts of the case of Kamalchand (supra). In our considered opinion the Asse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X