Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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.
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.
In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th January, 2017.