INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-43(1) DELHI, DELHI vs. NARESH ANEJA, NEW DELHI

PDF

ITA 3349/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 November 2024AY 2017-18Bench: the Assessing Officer as per the assessment discussion in para 4 page 7 proceedings ex-parte against him u/s 144 of the Act. Learned counsel further invites our attention to the assessee's second substantive ground to this effect raised which stood rejected by the CIT(A)/NFAC in paragraph 6.2 pages 5 & 6 of the lower appellate findings.4. Faced with this situation and once the foregoing facts have made it clear that the learned Assessing Officer did not “serve” his foregoing section 143(2) 3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The Revenue appealed against a CIT(A) order for Assessment Year 2017-18, which reversed additions under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE and disallowed Chapter-VIA deductions. Concurrently, the assessee filed a Rule 27 application challenging the validity of the assessment itself, contending that the notice under Section 143(2) was not properly issued and served.

Held

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's Rule 27 application, finding that the Section 143(2) notice was not properly served within the specified period, and the defect was not cured by Section 292BB as the assessee had not appeared before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment dated 28.12.2019 was quashed as not sustainable in law, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.

Key Issues

Whether the assessment was valid despite improper service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the applicability of Section 292BB.

Sections Cited

143(3), 69A, 115BBE, 143(2), 144, 292BB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal
417 ITR 325 · 2019 · SC
225 citing

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: CA &

Hearing: 25.11.2024Pronounced: 27.11.2024

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs Naresh Aneja, Ward-43(1), Shop No. 162, Nawada Bazar, New Delhi Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEPA5903G Assessee by : Sh. Anil Jain, CA & Sh. Ambrish Singhal, CA Revenue by : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 27.11.2024 ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 16.03.2023 in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050843344(1) in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).

Heard both parties at length. Case files perused.

We note during the course of hearing that apart from the Revenue’s instant appeal raising various substantive ground challenging correctness of the CIT(A)’s section reversing assessment findings inter alia making section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE addition of Rs.20,23,753/- followed by Chapter-VIA deduction disallowance to the tune of Rs.56,195/-, the assessee has preferred its application under Rule 27 of the 2 Naresh Aneja ITAT Rules wherein he challenges the assessment itself for want of a valid notice issued and served u/s 143(2) of the Act. It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that not only the Assessing Officer’s assessment dated 28.12.2019 in paragraphs 1 & 2 made it clear enough that he had issued the relevant notice to this effect on 24.09.2018 which was served on 03.10.2018. And also that the assessee had not complied with the same before the Assessing Officer as per the assessment discussion in para 4 page 7 proceedings ex-parte against him u/s 144 of the Act. Learned counsel further invites our attention to the assessee’s second substantive ground to this effect raised which stood rejected by the CIT(A)/NFAC in paragraph 6.2 pages 5 & 6 of the lower appellate findings.