Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH : RANCHI
Before: Hon’ble Shri S.S. Godara, JM]
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the CIT(A)-Ranchi’s order dated 26.04.2018 passed in case no. CIT(A), Ranchi/10220/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee’s only argument raised during the course of hearing is that the Assessing Officer’s section 48 notice dated 22.10.2019 forming part of record ought to have been served on the Principal Officer than the company itself. The Revenue strongly supports the impugned reassessment / reopening. I find in this backdrop of pleadings that the tribunal’s co-ordinate bench decision in I.T.A. Nos. 4 & 24/Ran/2015 M/s Premier Implements and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO decided on 28.02.2017 has quashed similar section 147 / 148 proceedings as follows:
M/s Heaven Construction & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.226/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 “6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the instant case the undisputed facts of the case are that the notice for initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was issued to M/s Premier Implements and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. The contention of the assessee is that since the reassessment notice u/s 148 was not issued to the Principal officer of the assessee company M/s Premier Implements and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. the said notice was not a valid notice in accordance with the section 282(2)(c ) of the Act and, therefore, the reassessment framed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2013 is not a valid order and the same should be quashed. The ld. DR, Shri Chawdhury has not controverted the submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee. We find that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Harsingar Gutkha (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (Supra) has held that when notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served on the Principal Officer of the Company, it was not a valid notice u/s 282(2)(c ) of the Act and consequently the reassessment order passed in pursuance to the notice is also bad in law. To the same effect are the decisions of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Mukand Lal & Sons (supra) and the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Konkani Bharat Dairy Farm (AOP) vs. ACIT (supra). Respectfully following the same, we hold that as the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not issued to the Principal Officer of the assessee company it is not a valid notice. Consequently the reassessment order dated 30.12.2013 passed u/s 147 of the Act read withy section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law and , hence, we quash the reassessment order dated 30.12.2013 and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 7. As we have quashed the reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act dated 30.12.2013 the other grounds of appeal taken by the assessee on the merits of the addition has become only academic in nature and hence infructuous and accordingly they are dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
I adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to quash the impugned reopening as well for want of valid service of section 148 notice on the assessee’s Principal Officer. Other issues on merits are rendered infructuous.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 09.04.2019
Sd/- [ S.S.Godara ] Judicial Member
Dated : 09.04.2019
M/s Heaven Construction & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.226/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 SB, Sr. PS
Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s Heaven Construction & Engineering Pvt. Ltd., H No. 24, Kusai, Kumar Toli, Doranda, Ranchi-834002. 2. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi. 3..C.I.T(A).- 4. C.I.T.- Ranchi 5. CIT(DR), Ranchi Bench.