SWASTIK COAL CORPORATION (INDIA) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-5, INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 477/IND/2013Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2021AY 2008-0910 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was not served within the stipulated time and in accordance with the prescribed procedure under Section 282 of the Act. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were vitiated.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged additions made under Section 68 and Rule 8D. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the validity of the notice served under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice under Section 143(2) was validly served on the assessee within the statutory time limit and in compliance with Section 282 of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 282

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: HON’BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL

For Appellant: Shri Girish Agrawal, Shri Vijay
For Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.DR, Shri Girish Agrawal, Shri Vijay
Hearing: 05.04.2021Pronounced: 20.05.2021

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore arising out of the order dated 29.12.2010 passed by the Ld. ACIT, Range-5, Indore (M.P) u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “The Act”) for Assessment Year 2008-09. Addition to the tune of Rs. 1,14,00,000/- u/s 68 and Rs.4,49,316/- on account of expenditure disallowed on exempted income upon application of Rule 8D have been challenged before us.

However, before arguing the matter on merit, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee raised preliminary objection in regard to the serving of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 31.08.2009 while initiating the assessment proceedings. The assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2008. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee that the impugned assessment order u/s 143(2) of the Act was claimed to have been passed after due process of the law by serving notice in due time in terms of proviso to Section 143(2) but the same has not been served in terms of the procedure laid down by the provision under section 282 of the Act. In that view of the matter, it was ultimately contended by the Ld. AR that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

2.

On the contrary Ld. DR contended that the notice dated 03.09.2009 u/s 143(3) of the Act was duly discharged through speed post followed by another notice by the notice servers namely Shri Prem N. Joshi on 4.9.2009. The proof of the two services are on record before the revenue and duly submitted before the Ld. Tribunal and therefore, according to the Ld. DR it has been assumed that the notice served was entered in the scrutiny pendency register. Hence, the plea of the order being passed without due process of law is not tenable.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties on the ground of maintainability of the assessment proceedings. We have also perused the available records. The case of the assessee is this that the notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act was received for the first time in 21.7.2010 by and under the notice dated 14.07.2010 fixing the date of hearing on 12.8.2010.

Such fact was brought to the notice of Ld. A.O by and under a letter dated 12.8.2010 issued by the assessee as appears at page 55 of the paper book submitted before us. Such objection was also filed on 03.09.2010 owing to non availability of Ld. A.O. In fact certified 3

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →