THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI vs. NILESH RAMESHWARPRASAD GUPTA

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/471/2011HC GujaratGJHC24025270201113 June 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court agreed with the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not served on the assessee within the prescribed period of twelve months. Consequently, the Tribunal held that no order could be passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The High Court found that the department could not establish that the notices were served on the assessee within the stipulated 12 months. Therefore, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-VI (the revenue) filed a tax appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal pertains to assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue's appeal was filed against Nilesh Rameshwarprasad Gupta (the assessee). The procedural history indicates that the Tribunal had made a finding of fact regarding the non-service of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that as notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was not issued and served, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was not a valid order? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 143(2), Section 143(3), and Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in its finding regarding the non-service of the notice under Section 143(2) and consequently the invalidity of the assessment order. The revenue's counsel, Mr. M.R. Bhatt, appeared before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
TAXAP/471/2011 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 471 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the  judgment?    No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not?    No 3 Whether their Lordships wish  to see the  fair copy of the  judgment?    No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to  the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any  order made thereunder?    No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge?    No ========================================================= THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI Versus NILESH RAMESHWARPRASAD GUPTA ========================================================= Appearance : MR MR BHATT FOR MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 13/06/2012

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)

1.

0 We have heard Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the revenue in this tax appeal.

TAXAP/471/2011 2/2 JUDGMENT

2.

0 This appeal has been filed on the following proposed question. “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that as notice u/s. 143(2) of the act was not issued and served, the assessment order passed u/2. 143(3) r. w. s. 147 of the act was not a valid order?”

3.

0 The Income Tax tribunal has recorded the finding of fact that the notice under section 143(2) was not served on the assessee within a period of twelve months. Therefore, no such order could be passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

4.

0 We are in agreement that the view taken by the tribunal that it could not be established by the department that the notices were served on the assessee within a period of 12 months. Therefore, we do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. This tax appeal is accordingly dismissed. [V. M. SAHAI, J.] [N. V. ANJARIA, J.] Amit

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →