ATUL KUMAR JAIN,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4677/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 September 2019AY 2010-115 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 order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed because the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act. This failure renders the assessment order null and void ab initio.

What were the facts?

The assessment was framed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee's appeal was against the order of the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is valid when a mandatory notice under section 143(2) was not issued by the Assessing Officer, despite the assessee's participation in the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 143(2),Section 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 ‘A’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLEShri Atul Kumar Jain

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Jain, CA, Shri Viral Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.09.2019Pronounced: 04.09.2019

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Meerut dated 24.04.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11.

2.

Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

3.

Assessment has been framed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] vide order dated 22.12.2017. A perusal of the order sheet entries, exhibited at pages 13 to 15 of the Paper Book clearly reveals that the Assessing Officer has never issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is mandatory and non-issuance of such notices makes the assessment order null and void, ab initio. This issue has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Dass Khandelwal in Civil Appeal Nos. 6261 & 6262 /2019 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the ratio laid down in the case of Hotel Blue Moon 3 SCC 259. The relevant findings read as under:

“The law on the point as regards applicability of the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is quite clear from the decision in Blue Moon’s case. The issue that however needs to be considered is the impact of Section 292BB of the Act.

According to Section 292BB of the Act, if the 9. assessee had participated in the proceedings, by way of legal fiction, notice would be deemed to be valid even if there be infractions as detailed in said Section. I he scope of the provision is to make service of notice having certain infirmities to be proper and valid if there was requisite participation on part of the assessee. It is, however, to be noted that the Section does not save complete absence of notice. For Section 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department. It is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the Section seeks to cure. The Section is not intended to cure complete absence of notice itself.

Since the facts on record are clear that no notice 10. under Section 143(2) of the Act was ever issued by the Department, the findings rendered by the High Court and Tribunal and the conclusion arrived at were correct. We, therefore, see no reason to take a different view in the matter.”

4.

Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [supra], we hold that the assessment order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 04.09.2019.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →