9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. CIT-DR, appeared. ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.05.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the 'CIT(A)') passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities in treating the u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the last date for issue of notice u/s 143(2) was on 30.09.2015. He has further submitted that though the notice has been shown to be signed on 30.09.2015 itself however, the same was sent at the email address of the assessee 03.11.2015. He, therefore, has submitted that by mere signing of the notice by the concerned Assessing Officer, it would not mean that the same was issued on the said d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was time barred. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the records. The notice in this case has been shown to be signed on 30.09.2015, however, the same was emailed to the assessee on 03.11.2015. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Marudhar Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.' (supra) considering the facts that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed period in relation to the reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 was not mandatory, we find that the issue has been settled by the various High Courts holding that even in the case of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act, the issuance of notice within the specified period u/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma reported in [2011] 336 ITR 678 (All.). Since the Assessing Officer did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the specified time period, therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to frame the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law and the same is accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
