C I T KOTA vs. DILBAGH KUMAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA/533/2011HC RajasthanRJHC02053691201127 March 2012Author: ARUN MISHRA,NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is necessary for assessments under Section 158BC of the Act. The Tribunal corrected its previous order, which had dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the non-service of this notice. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Supreme Court's decisions in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon and ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. were not available at the time of the initial order. The Tribunal found that without serving notice under Section 143(2), the assessments were without jurisdiction and thus void ab initio. The Tribunal also noted that the miscellaneous applications for setting aside the previous order were not contested by the revenue and were, in fact, acceded to. Consequently, the Tribunal found no ground to interfere with its impugned order. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose.

What were the facts?

This Indian ITAT judgment concerns an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal pertains to assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but related to block assessments. The core issue revolves around the ITAT's decision to set aside its previous order, which had dismissed the assessee's ground regarding the non-service of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before framing a block assessment. The ITAT, in its subsequent order, held that such assessments were without jurisdiction and void ab initio due to the absence of the Section 143(2) notice. The revenue's appeal challenges this corrective order. The present appeal is stated to arise out of the same order as a previously decided appeal (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.340/2011).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) erred in holding that the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is necessary for assessments made under Section 158BC of the Act, thereby correcting its prior order. The Revenue's contention, as understood from the context of the appeal, is that the ITAT's subsequent order, which corrected its earlier decision, was erroneous. The Revenue likely argued that the ITAT should not have entertained the miscellaneous applications to set aside its previous order or that the initial finding regarding the non-necessity of Section 143(2) notice for block assessments was correct. The Revenue's argument is implicitly that the ITAT's corrective order, relying on Supreme Court decisions, was wrongly passed. The Assessee's contention, as inferred from the ITAT's reasoning in the prior matter, was that the block assessment was void ab initio because no notice under Section 143(2) was served. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon and ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. to support their applications for setting aside the earlier order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 158BC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.533/2011 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Ms.Parinitoo Jain for the appellant. The matter is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota Vs. Shri Chanan Das (D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.340/2011 decided on 21.2.2012). Following order has been passed in Income Tax Appeal No.340/2011. “ Order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in four misc.applications arising out of Cross Objections No.1/JP/2005(ITSSA No.84/JP/2004), 80/JP/2005(ITSSA No.62/JP/2005), 16/JP/2005 (ITSSA No.100/JP/2004 and 79/JP/2005(ITSSA No.64/JP/2005) has been questioned. Stay application is also dismissed.”

2 Admittedly, this appeal also arises out of the same order. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid appeal. Civil Misc.Stay Application No.4377/2011 is also dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),C.J. Skant/- All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Shashi Kant Gaur, PA

More judgments on Section 158BC

All 487 judgments and leading authorities on Section 158BC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →