SHASHI KUMAR NIRALA,DEOGHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 29/PAT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 January 2021AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the assessment framed under Section 147 was bad in law due to the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) and a jurisdictional error in issuing the notice under Section 148 by a different officer than the one who framed the assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a re-assessment order framed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The appeal was filed with a delay of seven days, which was condoned by the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the re-assessment framed under Section 147 is valid without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) and if there is a jurisdictional error when the notice under Section 148 is issued by one officer and the assessment by another.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(2),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA “SMC” BENCH

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

.. अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ� /Respondent Hearing through video Conferencing Shri Alok Kumar, AR अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. CIT-SR-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 20-01-2021 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 20-01-2021 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Patna dated 24.11.2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. The assessee in this appeal has contested the validity of the re-assessment framed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The present appeal is barred by limitation with seven days delay. A separate condonation petition has been filed by the assessee. In view of the reasons explained and considering the shortness of the delay, I condone the delay in filing the present appeal. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

3.

At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued to the assessee before framing the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The Ld. DR has also not denied this fact on record. It has been held time and again by the various courts of this country that the issue of notice u/s. 143(2)

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →