9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months from the end of the Financial Year in which the return is furnished. In the present case, return was furnished by the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 22.03.2019 as mentioned in paragraph no.2 of the Assessment Order. Thus, the statutory notice to be issued u/s 143(2) has to be by 30th September, 2019. But, in the same paragraph of the Assessment Order, the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.11.2019 which was delayed by more than one month and thus the statutory limit was not adhered by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Section 143(2) of the Act. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Hotel Blue Moon [ 2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] as well as the decisions of Niral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed return of income on 22.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 22,51,140/-. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee on 07.11.2019. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.11.2019 which was served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) read with Section 129 of the Act alongwith questionnaire was issued on 07.11.2019. Final show cause notice dated 02.12.2019 was issued to the assessee, proposing to make assessment under Section 144 of the Act which was duly served upon the assessee. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee furnished the details. After taking cognisance of the same, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 20,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not required to make payment of any interest and the cash was already gone out of the possession of the assessee and lying in the possession of the Department. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions :- 1) Dwarkadas Punjabhai Patel (2014) 1 TMI 1434 (Tribunal - Ahmedabad) 2) Balaji Salt Works vs. ACIT (2024) 3 TMI 202 (Tribunal - Rajkot) 3) Sushil Bansal vs. ACIT (2023) 1 TMI 522 (Tribunal Delhi) 5.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that when the cash was seized during the course of search is required to be adjusted against taxes which were due including the advance tax for the purpose of computation of the interest under Section 234A, 234B 234C of the Act. The Department has to adjust the seized amount towards the advance tax from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 which was delayed by more than one month and thus the statutory limit was not adhered by the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Section 143(2) of the Act. The decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Hotel Blue Moon as well as the decisions of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of Nirali Specific Family Trust and Jignesh Bhagwandas Patel which are applicable in the present case to the extent that the statutory limit prescribed was not followed by the Assessing Officer. Thus, ground no.3 filed by the assessee is allowed. The assessment itself is null and void ab initio. 8. Since the assessment Order is void ab initio, there is no need to comment on the merits of the assessee s ground nos.1 2. 9. In the result, appeal of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
