9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) AND dismissed the appeal of the appellant/revenue. HELD THAT:- We find upon perusal of the record that, apart from anything else, the appellant/revenue had not raised any ground before the Tribunal which assailed the finding returned by the CIT( A ) that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind independently to the approval granted by it for triggering the reassessment proceeding. The grounds that the appellant/revenue took before the Tribunal were confined to whether the respondent/assessee had communicated to the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as a return in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. During the hearing, we are told appellant/revenue, that the revised grounds were filed; a hard copy of the same was furnished to us in the course of the hearing, but none of the revised grounds contained in the appeal dealt with the issue concerning the sanction accorded by the specified authority u/s 151 of the Act. Be that as it may, qua the aspect concerning the issue as to whether or not the respondent/assessee had communicated to the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as a return in response to the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the appeal] CM Appl. 46136/2023 in ITA 510/2023 [Application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 421 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. These are the applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, the period of delay involved is 421 days. 3. Although the delay in re-filing is substantial, in view of the fact that we are inclined to hear the matter on merits, albeit, at admission stage, the delay is condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 509/2023 ITA 510/2023 5. These appeals concern Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08 [ITA 509/2023] and 2008-09 [ITA 510/2023]. The appeals assail a common order dated 22.03.2021. 6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that since the issues which arose for consideration were common to the AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 200910, and 2010-11, the facts that obtained in AY 2007-08 were taken into account. 7. We intend to do the same, because the issues arising in AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09 are common. 8. To dispose of the above-captioned appeals, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) set aside the assessment order dated 02.03.2015 broadly on the following grounds: (i) That there was no tangible material available with the AO. (ii) The sanctioning authority had not applied its mind, independently, to appraise the material based on which reasons to believe have been recorded by the AO. (iii) That no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act had been issued to the respondent/assessee, although there was material on record to show that the respondent/assessee had communicated to the AO that the return originally filed by it on 31.08.2007 should be treated as a return in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Thus, because the return was on the record, the AO concluded that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was mandatorily required to be issued; failure to issue such notice had resulted in occurrence of a jurisdictional error. 17. The record shows that the Tribunal appraised the aforementioned observations and findings returned by the CIT(A), along with the material on record and dismissed the appeal of the appellant/revenue. 18. We find upon perusal of the record that, apart from anything else, the appellant/rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A) recorded the following findings of fact which were again, sustained by the Tribunal. For the sake of easy reference, the relevant part of the CIT(A) s order dated 29.02.2016 is extracted hereafter: 8.9 Appellant has also raised the issue that no notice u /s 143(2) was served on the appellant after filing the return in response to notice issued by the AO u/s 148. In order to verify the contention of the appellant, assessment records for the assessment year under consideration were requisitioned. In the paper book filed by the appellant, I find that the appellant has filed a letter dated 25.5.2013 submitted in the office of the AO on 21.6.2013 (Page 21 of the Paper book) wherein the assessee requested the AO to treat the original return filed on 31/08/ 2007 as return filed in pursuance of the notice issued u/s 148. On the contrary AO has mention at page 3 of the impugned order that no return in compliance to notice u/s 148 was filed. On verification of the assessment records, I find that no such letter is available in the records of the AO. Even the AO has not recorded the order sheet for the period between 22.5.2013 to 26.10.2014. However, there is a subsequent lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
