KIRAN PANDURANG,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued to the partnership firm was not a valid notice to the individual assessee and was also issued prior to the Section 148 notice. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal challenged the validity of the assessment order, specifically the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) after a notice under Section 148 was issued. The CIT(A) had held that a notice issued to a partnership firm owned by the assessee was sufficient.
What were the issues?
Whether a notice issued to a partnership firm can be considered a valid notice to an individual partner for the purpose of assessment. Whether an assessment order passed without a valid notice under Section 143(2) is legally sustainable.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(2),Section 148,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 254(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
Shree Kiran Pandurang, ACIT, Circle – 6 (2) (1), No. 48, 1st B Main, J. S. Nagar, Bangalore Saraswathipuran, Nandini Lay Out, vs. Rajajinagar, Bengaluru – 560096. PAN : AGKPP 7893 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shree Rajiv C. Nulvi, C. A. Revenue by : Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 07.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2020 O R D E R
Per A. K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee and it is directed against the Order of CIT (A) – 6 Bengaluru dated 07.03.2018.
As per Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee before the tribunal, this is the grievance of the assessee that no notice u/s 143 (2) was issued by the AO after the return was filed by the assessee in response to the notice issued by the AO u/s 148.
In course of hearing, learned AR of the assessee submitted that this issue was decided by CIT (A) as per para 8 of the impugned order and in that para, he has held that a notice u/s 143 (2) was issued by the AO on 28.08.2015 to M/s Penta Sun Solar Power Pack Technology and because this concern is owned by the assessee, it cannot be said that no notice was issued by the AO u/s 143 (2). He submitted that this finding of CIT (A) and this basis adopted by CIT (A) to decide this issue against the assessee is not as per law for two reasons. He pointed out that the concern M/s Penta Sun Solar Power Pack Technology is a partnership firm and not a sole proprietorship concern and therefore, any notice issued by the AO to this firm cannot be considered as a notice issued to the present assessee who is an individual. He submitted that second reason is this that notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO on 31.03.2016 as per the date noted by the AO on page 2 of the assessment order and although the AO has not noted the date when the assessee filed the return of income in response to this notice but the same was filed on 04.10.2016. He submitted that a notice u/s 143 (2) issued prior to issue of notice u/s 148 and filing of return by the assessee in response thereto cannot be considered a valid notice even if it is held that the notice u/s 143 (2) issued by the AO on 28.08.2015 to M/s Penta Sun Solar Power Pack Technology is a notice issued to the assessee. In reply, learned DR of the revenue submitted that time may be granted to her to produce assessment records. In rejoinder, learned AR of the assessee submitted that on two earlier dates i.e. on 04.12.2019 and on 12.03.2020, time was granted by the bench to the learned DR of the revenue to produce assessment records and therefore, no further time should be granted and the appeal may be decided on the basis of material available on record.
We have considered the rival submissions and we find that on two earlier dates i.e. on 04.12.2019 and on 12.03.2020, time was granted by the bench to the learned DR of the revenue to produce assessment records and the time was granted on both these dates on the request of the learned DR of the revenue. In spite of this, the assessment records are not produced by the DR of the revenue even today. Hence, it is seen that sufficient time was granted by the bench to DR and therefore, we feel that no further adjournment is required. Hence, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee because the basis adopted by CIT (A) to decide this issue against the assessee is not as per law for both the reasons i.e. the said notice issued by the AO on 28.08.2015 to M/s Penta Sun Solar Power Pack Technology, a firm cannot be said to be a notice issued to the present individual assessee and this notice is prior to issue of notice u/s 148. We hold that for non issue and service on assessee of a valid notice u/s 143 (2), the assessment order passed by the AO on 06.12.2016 u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 is not legally sustainable and it is quashed. However, in view of the present pandemic situation, we feel that in the interest of justice, liberty should be granted to revenue to approach this tribunal for recall of this order u/s 254 (2) if the AO finds that some tangible material is available in assessment records to establish that a valid notice u/s 143 (2) was served on the assessee within the prescribed time as per law. We order accordingly. In view of this decision, other grounds do not call for adjudication.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026