SHRI SANJEEV BRIJNATH GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2202/AHD/2013Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 December 2019AY 2005-063 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the period prescribed by the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was void ab initio and bad in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2005-06. A notice under section 143(2) was issued by the Assessing Officer on 23rd May, 2007, which the assessee contended was beyond the prescribed time limit.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment proceedings are vitiated due to the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) beyond the statutory time limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, AR

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XX, Ahmedabad dated 03.06.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06 and following grounds have been taken:

2 . A.Y. 2005-06 1.The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order which was submitted to be bad-in-law as the notice u/s. 143(2) was issued beyond the period as provided in the Act making the order void-ab- initio 2.Without prejudice to the above legal ground he has erred in law and on facts in upholding the following addition/disallowances without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 1) Addition u/s.68 for alleged Un-explained advances: 13,03,166. 2) Expenses disallowed 1% of Turnover : 2,21,790.

3) On the facts no interest u/s. 234B ought to have been levied . 4) On the facts the return income of Rs. 1,43,870/-ought to have been accepted. 5) The appellant craves leave to add to alter and/or to modify any ground of appeal.

Facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and shown income from manufacturing of stamping and trading of iron and steel. Assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2005-06 on 15.09.2005 declaring total income of Rs. 1,43,870/-. The case was selected under scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) dated 23rd May, 2007 and assessee was advised to be present himself or through his Authorized Representative on 1st June, 2007 at 11.30 A.M. in the office of the ld. Assessing Officer.

At the time of hearing ld. A.R. raised a legal objection that return was filed on 16th Sept., 2005 and a notice u/s. 143(2) ought to have been issued on or before 30.09.2006. But in this present case, on the notice u/s. 143(2) date was mentioned as 23rd June, 2007 and argued that above said notice was issued beyond the period as provided in the Act, therefore, order of the Assessing Officer is void ab-initio. When we confronted ld. D.R., he relied on the order of the Assessing Officer.

3 . A.Y. 2005-06

Since notice was issued beyond the prescribed period as provided in the Income Tax Act, therefore, order passed by the Assessing Officer is null and void. Thus, we hold that assessment proceeding in this case are bad in law and not in accordance with provisions of law.

Since on legal/technical ground, we have granted relief to the assessee, therefore, we do not want to discuss or adjudicate remaining grounds on merit of the case.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 10- 12- 2019

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →