DR. RAVIRAJ AJIT SHINDE,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3),, SANGLI

On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue produced case records and submitted that no notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was served on the assessee. However, Ld. DR contended that there was no return filed by the assessee in pursuance to notice u/s.148 of the Act and therefore, there was no need for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. 6. The Ld. AR per contra vehemently submitted that the original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act was filed. However, there was no return filed in pursuance to the notice u/s.148 of the Act. The ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-10, Mumbai Vs. Ms.Malvika Arun Somaiya [2010] 2 taxmann.com 144 ( Bombay) where the facts are similar to the present case of the assessee, wherein the assessee has not filed any fresh return in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer had passed order of assessment. The Tribunal held that notice u/s.143(3)(2) ought to have been served upon assessee before taking any further proceedings and therefore, order of assessment was in violation of statutory provisions. The findings of the Tribunal were upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in favour of the assessee. 7. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions on the legal grounds. We find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-10, Mumbai Vs. Ms.Malvika Arun Somaiya (supra.) where also, the original return was filed by assessee. However, in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, no return was filed. The Assessing Officer did not issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act before taking any further proceedings u/s.148 of the Act. It was held by the Tribunal that such notice u/s.143(2) of the Act ought to have been served upon the assessee before taking any further proceedings and therefore, order of assessment was in violation of statutory provisions. This finding of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. We, therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, answer the legal grounds raised by the assessee in favour of the assessee and thereby setting-aside the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals).” 5. In this case, the statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued. The Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay already quashed such reassessments made without issue of the said notice. It is binding on us. Considering the above findings of the Tribunal (supra) as upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, on this legal issue, I am of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the legal issues raised commonly by the assessee in these two appeals are allowed.

Considering the relief granted to the assessee on the legal issues, the adjudication of merit related issues becomes an academic exercise only. Therefore, the other grounds raised by the assessee in the appeals are dismissed as academic. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 31st day of December, 2019. Sd/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखा सद� / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक Dated : 31st December, 2019. Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. 3. The CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur; 4. The CCIT, Pune; िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “एक-सद�य मामला” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�यािपत �ित //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune