Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8132 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3530/2019) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai …Appellant Versus M/s IVen Interactive Limited, Mumbai …Respondent J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Income Tax Appeal No.94 of 2016, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue and has confirmed the orders passed by the learned C.I.T (Appeals) as well as I.T.A.T quashing and setting aside the assessment order for A.Y. 200607, the revenue has preferred the present appeal. 1
That the respondent – assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year 200607 on 28.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.3,38,71,716/. The said return was filed under E Module Scheme and thereafter a hard copy of the same was filed on 05.12.2006. The return of income was accompanied with balance sheet and profit and loss account. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1961 Act’). That a notice under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act was issued to the respondent assessee on 05.10.2007. The notice was sent at the assessee’s address available as per the PAN database. That a further opportunity was provided to the assessee vide notice under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act on 25.07.2008. The said notice was also issued to the assessee at the available address as per the PAN database. That thereafter, further notices under Section 142(1) of the 1961 Act were issued to the assessee on 23.01.2008, 25.07.2008 and 05.10.2008 along with questionnaires calling for various details and were duly served on the respondentassessee company. In response to the said notice, the representative of the company appeared on 28.11.2008 and 04.12.2008. The assessee participated in the 2
proceedings before the Assessing Officer. However, the assessee challenged the notice under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the 1961 Act on the ground that the said notices were not served upon the assessee as the assesseecompany never received those notices and the subsequent notices served and received by the assesseecompany were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under proviso to Section 143 of the 1961 Act.
1 That the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 24.12.2008 completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act by making disallowance of Rs. 8,91,17,643/ under Section 14A of the 1961 Act, read with Rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules and computed total income at Rs.5,52,45,930/.
2 Being aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24.12.2008, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned C.I.T (Appeals). The learned C.I.T (Appeals) allowed the appeal vide order dated 23.12.2010 holding, inter alia, that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act, without assuming valid juri iction under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act, and therefore, the assessment framed under Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act was invalid. The learned C.I.T (Appeals) observed that as the subsequent service of notice under Section 3
143(2) of the 1961 Act was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 143 of the 1961 Act and earlier no notices were served upon the assessee and/or received by the assessee as the same were sent at the old address and in the meantime companyassessee changed its address and therefore the assessment order was bad in law. The Revenue preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which came to be dismissed by the learned I.T.A.T. vide order dated 19.01.2015. The order passed the learned C.I.T (Appeals) as well as I.T.A.T. have been confirmed by the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Shri H. Raghavendra Rao, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal and thereby confirming the orders passed by the learned C.I.T (Appeals) and I.T.A.T holding that the assessment order was bad in law, is contrary to the provisions of Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act.
1 It is further submitted that the Assessing Officer sent the notice under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act to the assessee at the 4
available address as per the PAN database. It is submitted that as such there was no intimation by the assessee to the Assessing Officer with respect to change of address. It is submitted
therefore that notice under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act was sent to the assessee on the available address as per the PAN database. It is submitted therefore that once notice under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act was issued and sent to the assessee on the available address as per the PAN database, it can be said to be a sufficient compliance of the relevant provisions of the 1961 Act, more particularly Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act.
2 It is further submitted that as such the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the alleged communication dated 06.12.2005 from the respondentassessee to the Assessing Officer intimating new address of the assessee was never received by the Assessing Officer. It is submitted that even today also the assessee is not in a position to produce the said communication. It is submitted therefore the respondentassessee has failed to prove that the alleged communication dated 06.12.2005 was, in fact, sent to the Assessing Officer, intimating about new address.
3 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue that, as such, the learned C.I.T (Appeals) 5
has heavily relied upon the alleged communication dated 06.12.2005 intimating the change of address to the Assessing Officer by the assessee, however, the communication dated 06.12.2005 is not forthcoming and has not been produced. It is submitted therefore that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer was justified in sending the notices under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act at the available address as per the PAN database. It is submitted therefore that the learned C.I.T (Appeals), I.T.A.T and the High Court have committed a grave error in holding that the assessment order is bad in law as the notice under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act was beyond the period of limitation.
4 It is further submitted that as such thereafter the assessee did participate in the assessment proceedings and therefore the learned C.I.T (Appeals) ought to have considered the appeal on merits and ought not to have set aside the assessment order solely on the ground that the assessment order is bad in law.
5 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal.
Shri S.K. Bagaria, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondentassessee has made strenuous efforts to 6
support the orders passed by the learned C.I.T (Appeals) and confirmed by the I.T.A.T. and the High Court. It is submitted that as such the Assessing Officer was aware of the new address of the assessee and therefore the Assessing Officer was required to send the notices on the new address. It is submitted that instead the Assessing Officer sent the notice at the old address and therefore the same was never served upon the assessee. It is submitted that by the time the subsequent notice was served upon the assessee, the notice under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act was barred by limitation as provided under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Therefore, the learned C.I.T (Appeals), I.T.A.T and the High Court are right in holding that the assessment order was bad in law.
1 Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee has further submitted that as such the change of address and change in the name of the assesseecompany was intimated to the