BHUPENDRA K.PATHAK,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13 (3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1335/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 June 2022AY 2011-124 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 assessment was vitiated due to the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2). Following a previous order for AY 2010-11 with similar facts, the assessment orders were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed returns for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13. Notices under section 148 were issued, and assessments were completed by the AO at higher incomes. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 is vitiated due to the absence of a notice under section 143(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 148,Section 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri K. Srinivasan
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S. SYAL, VP : These two appeals by the assessee relating to the assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 arise out of a common order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 28-06-2019. Since both the appeals are based on some common grounds, I am, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case for the A.Y. 2011-12 are that the assessee filed its original return u/s.139(1) declaring total income of Rs.5,72,500/-. Thereafter, a notice u/s.148 was issued on 12-03-2014. The assessee furnished return in response to such notice on 24-02-2015 declaring total income at Rs.5,72,500/-. The AO completed the assessment determining total income at Rs.20,56,975/-. In the first appeal, the assessee challenged, inter alia, that in the absence of any notice having been issued u/s.143(2), the assessment framed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 was vitiated. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept this contention by invoking section 292BB of the Act and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits.

3.

The facts and circumstances; and also the decision of the AO and that of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue are similar to those of the immediately preceding year. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal for the two assessment years under consideration.

4.

I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The assessee filed a batch of three appeals consisting of the A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2012-13 raising similar issues and grounds. In fact, the ld. CIT(A) also passed a common order for such years. The ground challenging the non- issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and the framing of the consequential assessment was taken up by the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11 also. Both the sides made submissions on this issue w.r.t. the factual panorama of the A.Y. 2010-11 and adopted those arguments for the two years under consideration.

1.

A separate order has been passed by the Tribunal for the said immediately preceding year in which the contention of the assessee on this score has been accepted and the assessment has been quashed for non-issuing of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.

The other view point of the ld. CIT(A), invoking section 292BB, has also been jettisoned in such order. As the facts and circumstances for the two years under consideration are admittedly mutatis mutandis similar, following the same view, I set-aside the assessment orders and the impugned orders for the years under consideration as well.

5.

In the result, both the appeals are allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th June, 2022.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →