PREM PRAKASH GARG,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2594/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 January 2017AY 2003-043 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 non-service of the mandatory notice under section 143(2) and the failure to furnish reasons for reopening, despite a request, render the assessment order bad in law. The tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's precedent on the mandatory nature of section 143(2) notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee contended that a mandatory notice under section 143(2) was not served, and reasons for reopening were not provided. The assessment was completed under section 144 read with section 147.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order is invalid due to non-service of mandatory notice under section 143(2) and failure to provide reasons for reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 144,Section 147

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 BENCH ‘SMC 3’, NEW DELHI

Before: BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY

Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R. ORDER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, New Delhi dated 27/01/2015 for the assessment year 2003-0 4.

2.

After hearing rival contentions I find that in this case, mandatory notice under section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was not served on the assessee. The assessment order was passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the act . The assessee contended that, a) that a copy of the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for reopening of the assessments has not been provided to the assessee, despite asking for the same vide letter dated 4/01/2010. and b) that mandatory notice under section 143 (2) of the act has not been served on the assessee prior to completion of assessment.

2.1. As the Ld. DR could not controvert these contentions of the assessee and as I am convinced with the factual position stated by the assessee, after going through the record, I have no hesitation in quashing the assessment order as bad in law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Pavan Gupta (2009) 318 ITR 0322 (Delhi) held that issue of notice under section 143 (2) of the act is mandatory and not merely a procedural irregularity.

2.2. Respectfully following the same I quash the impugned assessment order both on the ground that the mandatory notice under section 143 (2) of the act has not been served and also on the ground that, the reasons for reopening were not furnished to the assessee, despite the assessee requesting a copy of the same.

3.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th January, 2017.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →