BISWANATH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-58(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) – 18, Kolkata dated 02.12.2015.

The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The assessee is an individual who is a teacher deriving income from salary capital gain and other sources. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by him on 25.07.2007 declaring a total income of Rs. 98,914/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 31.12.2009, the total income of the assessee was determined by the A.O. at Rs. 32,94,047/- after making various additions. 3. Against the order passed by the A.O. under section 143(3), an appeal was preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A)

In ground no 1 and 2, the assessee has raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity of the assessment made by the A.O. under section 143(3) on the ground that the notice issued by the A.O. under section 143(2) initiating the assessment proceedings was barred by limitation.

In support of the assessee’s case on the preliminary issue, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed by the assessee on 25.07.2007 and as per the proviso to section 143(2) as applicable to the year under consideration, the notice under section 143(2) could be validly issued by the A.O. only up to 31.07.2007 i.e. within a period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed by the assessee. He contended that the notice under section 143(2), however, was issued by the A.O. only on 07.08.2008 and the same therefore was barred by limitation making the assessment completed Assessment Year: 2007-08 Biswanath Banerjee by the A.O. under section 143(3) in pursuance thereof as invalid . In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the assessee relied inter alia on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Tulsi Food Products vs DCIT 380 ITR 192.

The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) in support of the revenue’s case on this issue and submitted that as per the amendment made by the relevant provisions with effect from 01.04.2008, the time limit for issuing notice under section 143(2) is changed to 6 months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished. He contended that the time limit available to issue a valid notice under section 143(2) was up to 30.09.2008 and the notice issued by the A.O. on 07.08.2008 was well within the time limit. He also contended that section 143(2) is procedural and therefore the amendment made with effect from 01.04. 2008 was applicable in the case of the assessee as the notice under section 143(2) was issued by the A.O. on 07.08.2008.

We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant the material available on record. It is observed that the preliminary issued raised by the assessee in this appeal is squarely covered inter alia by the decision of Hon’ble Allhabad High Court in the case of Tulsi Food Products vs DCIT 380 ITR 192 wherein it was held that the return of income for the assessment year 2007-08 having been filed by the assessee on 24.07.2007, the amendment made to section 143(2) with effect from 01.04.2008 was not applicable and the notice issued by the A.O. under 143(2) on