SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 419/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 January 2020AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit of six months from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, the assessment order was bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their return of income within the due date for assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act on October 15, 2013.

What were the issues?

Whether the notice issued under section 143(2) was within the statutory limitation period, and if not, whether the assessment order is liable to be quashed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(6)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, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Adv. यथ क ओर से /
Hearing: 06.01.2020Pronounced: 17.01.2020

आदेश / ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM

1.

1. The present appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-25, Delhi dated 25.10.2016 relating to assessment year 2012-13 against the order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal and also additional grounds of appeal.

3.

The Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the additional grounds of appeal are jurisdictional issues which need to be decided first. He also pointed out that the said issue does not involve any investigation of facts and was purely legal issue which merits to be admitted and decided.

4.

The additional grounds of appeal read as under:-

1.

“That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the assumption of jurisdiction in initiating the proceedings and passing the impugned assessment order 143(3), is bad in law and nullity in the eyes of law as the notice u/s 143(2) has not been issued in accordance with law.

2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld.AO in issuing notice u/s 143(2) dated 15.10.2013, is barred by limitation and therefore assessment order needs to be quashed on this ground. Since the above grounds of appeal are purely legal, do not reqruie fresh facts to be investigated and go to the root of the matter, it is prayed that the same may please be admitted in view of the following judgements: • CIT vs Sinhgad Technical Education Society, (2017) 397 ITR 0344 (SC) • NTPC Ltd. vs CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 0383 (SC) • VMT Spinning Co.Ltd. vs CIT & Anr. (2016) 389 ITR 0326 (P&H) • CIT vs Sam Global Securities, (2014) 360 ITR 0682 (Del.) • Siksha vs CIT (2011) 336 ITR 0112 (Orissa) • Inventors Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs CIT (1992) 194 ITR 0548 (Bom.)

5.

The assessee is aggrieved by the initiation of assessment proceedings wherein the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued beyond the period of limitation. Since the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee do not require any investigation of facts hence, the same are admitted for adjudication.

6.

The perusal of the assessment order itself reflects that the return of income which was due in the case of the assessee on 31.07.2012, was filed on 26.07.2012 i.e. within the due date of filing of the return of income.

The Assessing Officer further issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 15.10.2013. Admittedly, this is the year of search and the assessment proceedings have to be completed after issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer gets the jurisdiction vide the aforesaid notice issued.

7.

Under the provision of section 143(2) of the Act, proviso thereunder, the notice has to be issued within six months from the end of the assessment year i.e. by 30.09.2013. The notice in the case of the assessee is issued on 15.10.2013 i.e. beyond the time prescribed under the Act.

Hence, the initiation of the proceedings and the jurisdiction invoked by the Assessing Officer suffers from infirmity. Consequently, we hold that the present assessment order is bad in law as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued beyond the limit prescribed under the Act. The additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. Since the assessment has been quashed in the cases, we do not adjudicate the issue raised on merits.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th January 2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →