ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GANESH PAPER MILLS (DELHI) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2848/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 March 2019AY 2012-135 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment proceedings were void due to the notice under Section 143(2) being issued beyond the prescribed limitation period. The issuance of the notice on 21.01.2014 was beyond the statutory deadline of 30.09.2013.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2012. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 142(1) on 06.01.2014, to which the assessee responded by stating the return was already filed and provided a copy of the acknowledgment. Subsequently, a notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 21.01.2014.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment proceedings are void due to the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) beyond the statutory limitation period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH.K.N.CHARY

For Respondent: CA Sh. Rajiv Malik, Advocate
Hearing: 25/03/2019Pronounced: 26/03/2019

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 05.02.2016 pertaining to A. Y. 2012-13.

2.

The substantive grievance of the revenue read :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessment as void as notice u/s 143 (2) was not issued within the limitation period without appreciating the fact that the notice u/s 143 (2) was issued on 21.01.2014 in response to the return u/s 142 (1) field by the assessee on 21.012014 and the fact that the above return of income was filed under protest is of no legal significance.

3.

Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Facts on record show that the assessee electronically filed its return of income on 26.09.2012 vide E-filing acknowledgment number 4958283541260912. The acknowledgment is placed at page 1 of the paper book.

4.

On 06.01.2014 the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142 (1) of the Act asking the assessee to file return of income for the assessment year under consideration. In response to the same the assessee filed reply on 21.01.2014 where in the assesee has stated that the return for the assessment year 2012-13 has already been filed on 26.09.2012 and filed a copy of the acknowledgment of the return and the same is mentioned herein above.

5.

The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act on 21.01.2014.

6. In response to such notice the assessee, interealia, replied as under :- “5. In response to the above show cause the assessee filed reply dated -014 the extract of same is reproduced as under: “2, At the outset, it is most respectfully submitted that instant assessment proceedings is barred by limitation as no notice under section 143(2) of the Act has been issued to the assessee company within the time as provided under section 143(2) of the Act. It is submitted that for the captioned assessment year i.e. 2012-13, the assessee filed its return of income on 26.09.2012, and to scrutinize the return of income for the aforesaid assessment year, notice under section 143(2) of the Act could have been issued to the assessee only upto 30.09.2013. It is however submitted that since no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the appellant on or before 30.09.2013 and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee only on 21.01.2014, as such, instant assessment proceedings is barred by limitation and hence the initiation of the proceedings is without jurisdiction and is'liable to be dropped.”

7.

The Assessing Officer dismissed this contention of the assessee by observing as under :-

6.

“The assessee also relied upon various judgments. As per para of the assessee’s reply, the assessee was given opportunity and the counsel for the assessee appeared on 20.3.2014 with whom the case was discussed. The en by the assessee’s counsel is not acceptable. In view of the fact that the search operation was conducted on 09.11.2011, the notice under section 2) was issued when the assessee filed the return in response to the notice section 142(1) wherein the assessee was asked to file the return of income. Hence the notice u/s 143(2) was within the period and the objection of the assessee doses not carry any weight.”

8.

From the aforestated factual matrix there remains no doubt that the Assessing Officer has proceeded on an erroneous assumtion that the assessee has filed return in pursuance to the notice u/s 142 (1) of the Act. The undisputed fact is that the assessee had simply filed acknowledgment of the return of income which was filed on 26.09.2012. The limitation for the service of notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act expired on or before 30.09.2013 whereas the notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 21.01.2014 which is beyond the period of limitation.

9.

Considering the facts of the case in hand in totality we have no hesitation in upholding the findings of the CIT(A). The appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is accordingly dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.03.2019.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →