BHARAT RAI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), MUZAFFARPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘एकल” न्यायपीठ, पटना IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.45/PAT/2019 (ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Bharat Rai, Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Muzaffarpur M/s Sanjeev Construction Minapur Meenapur, Muzaffarpur-843128 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AIAPR 8158 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri N.K.Lal, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Supriya Biswas, JCIT-DR

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 17/09/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/ : 18/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by learned CIT(A), Muzaffarpur, dated 28.11.2018 for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. First of all, I have heard arguments of both the sides on the first legal ground of assessee challenging the validity of impugned assessment order dated 23.12.2011 on the ground that the notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short the ‘Act’) has been served on the assessee beyond prescribed limitation period as per proviso to sub-section 2 to Section 143 of the Act. 3. Learned Assessee Representative (AR) submitted that the assessee filed his return of income for assessment year 2009-2010 on 05.10.2009 and from the copy of the ordersheet/notesheet of the

2 ITA No.45/PAT/2019 Assessing Officer dated 30.05.2011, it is clear that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.142(1) & 143(2) of the Act on 30.05.2011 for fixing the date on 23.06.2011. Ld. AR pointed out that as per the requirement of proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 143 of the Act, the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act should have been served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which return is furnished. Ld. AR further elaborated that when the return was filed on 05.10.2009 then the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act should have been served on the assessee on or before 30.09.2010, whereas the Assessing Officer had issued said notice after lapse of substantial time on 30.05.2011, therefore, the scrutiny assessment passed u/s.143(3) of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be annulled. 4. Replying to the above, ld. DR, in all fairness, did not controvert that the assessee has filed return of income for assessment year 2009-2010 on 05.10.2009 and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act along with notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued on 30.05.2011 i.e. after expiry of prescribed time limit provided as per proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 143 of the Act. 5. In view of the above factual findings and submissions placed before the bench, I am inclined to hold that since the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has not been served on the assessee within the prescribed time limit i.e. on or before 30.09.2010, therefore, the impugned scrutiny assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act is bad in law and,, hence, the same

3 ITA No.45/PAT/2019 deserves to be annulled. Accordingly, I hold so. Consequently, the legal ground No.1 of the assessee is allowed. 6. Since the legal ground No.1 of the assessee has been allowed and impugned scrutiny assessment order has been annulled, therefore, other grounds of assessee on merits have become infructuous and I am not adjudicating upon them. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/09/2019. Sd/- (C.M.GARG) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER पटना /Patna; दिनांक Dated 18/09/2019 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.(on tour) आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 1. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकि आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. निभधगीय प्रनतनिनर्, आयकि अपीलीय अनर्किण, पटना / DR, ITAT, 5. Patna गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. 6. सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पटना / ITAT, Patna