No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the
CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 11.6.2018for the assessment year 2013-14.
Although several grounds have been raised in the appeal, but the
assessee pressed legal ground that the assessment order has been passed
without issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, therefore, the order is to be
annulled.
Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that notice u/s.148 of the Act
was issued on 24.3.2017 and in response to the said notice, the assessee
filed written submission on 29.3.2017 with copies of bank accounts
maintained and explanation regarding source of cash deposits in saving
P a g e 1 | 6
ITA No.365/CT K/2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4
bank account. However, return was not filed for the assessment year 2013-
He submitted that thereafter notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued to
the assessee on 4.5.2017 requiring the assessee to filed true and correct
return on or before 12.3.2017 and also on 19.5.2017, the assessee was
required to furnish accounts and documents. He submitted that the
assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14
electronically u/s. 142 of the I.T.Act instead of filing in response to notice
u/s.148 of the Act. Ld counsel submitted that the Assessing Officer issued
notice u/s.142(1) of the Act on 4.5.2017 and in response to which, the
assessee filed its return of income on 10.10.2017. he submitted that since
a return of income has been filed in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the
Act, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act
before undertaking scrutiny of the income tax return and completing the
assessment. Therefore, in absence of issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act,
the assessment order passed by the AO is abinitio void and liable to be
quashed.
Ld counsel further relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) in
the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Omission on the part
of the assessing authority to issue notice under section 143(2)cannot be a
procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the
requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.". He
P a g e 2 | 6
ITA No.365/CT K/2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4
further relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
Pr. CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt Ltd., in ITA 519/2015 order
dated 14.10.2015, wherein, it is held that failure by the AO to issue a notice
to the assessee under section 143(2) of the Act pursuant to notice under
section 148 of the Act, is fatal to the order of reassessment. He further
referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of
Sapthagiri Finance and Investments vs ITO in TC (Appeal) No.159 of 2006
order dated 17.7.2012 held that beyond notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act
there was no notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act, there was total
failure on the part of the revenue from complying with the procedure laid
down under section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory one. Further
reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case
of CIT vs Pawan Gupta, 318 ITR 322 (Del), wherein, it was held that the
assessment order passed without complying with section 143(2) of the Act,
it would be invalid and not be merely irregular. Reliance was placed on the
decision of ITAT Indore in the case of ACIT vs Sukhamani Cotton Industries
and ors in ITA No.22/Ind/2017 and ors order dated 21.12.2018, wherein it
was held that even though notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued but
the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has not been issued, a fatal error has been
committed by the AO and thus the reassessment order u/s.147 r.w.s 143(3)
of the Act is invalid.
P a g e 3 | 6
ITA No.365/CT K/2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4
Replying to above, ld DR supported the orders of the lower
authorities.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the
case as well as the orders of lower authorities. In the instant case, the
assessee is an individual and derives his income from other sources. Since
the assessee did not file return of income, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was
issued by the AO and in response to which, the assessee filed written
submission with copies of bank accounts and explanation regarding source
of cash deposits in saving bank account. Thereafter, another notice
u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued by the AO requiring the assessee to
prepare the return of income and file the same on or before 12.5.2017.
Thereafter, the AO proceeded to frame assessment u/s.144/147 of the Act
on 29.12.2018 without issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. While doing so,
the AO took cognizance of total income as shown in the statement of
income accompanied with the return filed u/s.142(1) of the Act. On
perusal orders of lower authorities, I find that though the assessee has filed
its return of income in response to notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, the
Assessing Officer has failed to issue any notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, which
is mandatory. I also find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Blue Moon (supra) held that "Omission on the part of the assessing
authority to issue notice under section 143(2)cannot be a procedural
irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of
P a g e 4 | 6
ITA No.365/CT K/2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4
notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.". Further the Hon'ble
Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Salarpur Cold Storage Private
Limited (2015) 228 taxmann 48 (Mag.) (All), held that "Where there is a
failure apparent to issue a notice under section 143(2) within prescribed
period, it cannot be cured by taking recourse to section 292BB of the
Income Tax Act, 1961."
Further Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Romi vs. CIT (2014)
363 ITR 311 (Ker), has held that "Where no notice as issued under section
143(2) to assessee, assessment made under section 143(3) was to be set
aside." Similar view has also been taken in plethora of judgments cited
supra.
Respectfully following the aforesaid precedents and various case
laws, we find that statutory notice as required to Sec. 143(2) of the Act was
to be issued by the Competent Authority and within the time. I also find
that the ld. DR also failed to bring anything contrary to the arguments
advanced by the ld. AR with regard to the issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the
Act before completion of assessment u/s.144/147 of the Act. Consequently,
I find that in absence of any valid notice u/s.143(2) of the Act having been
issued in the instant case, the impugned order passed u/s.144/147 of the
Act cannot be sustained. As such, the assessment framed, without the
issuance of the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2), is void ab initio. The assessee
succeeds in legal ground of appeal.
P a g e 5 | 6
ITA No.365/CT K/2018 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4
Since I have held the assessment order as void ab initio, other
grounds of appeal on merits are not adjudicated upon
Order pronounced on 31 /12/2019.
(Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 31 /12/2019 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Purna Chandra Das, Plot No.9, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar
The Respondent. ITO, Ward 3(4), Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT- 2, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//
By order
Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack
P a g e 6 | 6