UMA RAMAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1117/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 January 2021AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the issue of proper service of notices under Section 143(2) was the core issue and had not been adequately dealt with by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

A survey was conducted, leading to the re-opening of assessments for the assessees. The assessees challenged the validity of these assessments, primarily on the grounds that notices under Section 143(2) were not properly served.

What were the issues?

Whether the re-assessments are valid in law due to the alleged non-service of notices under Section 143(2) on the assessees.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ C ” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 06.01.2021Pronounced: 07.01.2021

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER BENCH:

1.

The above assessees’ filed these appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Puducherry in 153, 154, 159, 160 & 161/CIT(A)PDY/2016-17 dated 31.12.2018 for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, respectively.

2.

Since these appeals are connected, they are heard together and being disposed. A survey was conducted in the business premises of Shri.

Vishnu Raman, the assessee on 14.10.2015. Subsequent to the survey, the assessments of the assessee and his mother, Smt. Uma Raman, were re- opened u/s. 148 for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, & 2014-15 and the re-assessments were completed. Aggrieved against those orders, the respective assessees filed appeals before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed those appeals. Aggrieved against those orders, the above assessees’ have filed the above appeals.

3.

The cases were heard through video conferencing. The Ld. AR submitted that both the assessees’ have challenged the assessments submitting before the Ld. CIT(A) that the notices u/s. 143(2) were not served on the respective assessees’. Therefore, the assessments made by the :-3-: to 1119/Chny/2019 Assessing Officer are invalid in law. The Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated this matter cryptically without elaborately dealing with the written submissions filed by the respective assessees’ which is the core issue. Therefore, the Ld AR pleaded that these appeals be remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for giving adequate opportunity to the respective assessees’ and deal with the matter properly. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

4.

We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material.

Both the assessees’ have pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer has not served the notices u/s. 143(2) and hence the re-assessments made in the respective cases are not valid. It is submitted on behalf of the assessees’ that a detailed written submissions were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the AO had documentary evidences of the notice being served on 22.11.2016 from Superintendent of Post Office, Pondicherry, which the assessees’ are pleading that factually incorrect. Since all these appeals are challenged mainly on the assumption of jurisdiction, we are of the view that this issue needs to be dealt properly by the Ld. CIT(A) and hence we deem it fit to remit all the appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. The assessees’ shall place relevant materials based on which they rely in support of their contentions before the Ld. CIT(A) and shall duly comply with the requirements of the Ld.

:-4-: to 1119/Chny/2019 CIT(A) in accordance with law. After examining them, the Ld. CIT(A) shall dispose the impugned appeals by a speaking order.

5.

In the result, both of the assessees’ appeals for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 07th January, 2021 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →