DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTRE SERVICES INC., NEW DELHI

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVI, Delhi dated 21.12.2012 pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 on the following grounds .

1. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in treating the service of notice issued u/s 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as invalid and barred by limitation;

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that the notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act was issued under CASS { Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection } which is solely computer generated as per provisions laid by the CBDT;

3. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in giving relief to the assessee on provision of section 292 BB of the Act not appreciating the facts 1 that the assessee attended the case as and when required during the assessment proceedings; 4. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by assuming that the validity of return relates back to the date of uploading e-return {without digital signatures}, whereas there is no specifically mentioned in this regard in the scheme laid down by the CBDT through press release dated 01.09.2010; 5. The appellant craves to be allowed to add any fresh grounds of appeal and/or delete or amend any of the grounds of appeal.”

3.1. At para 4.5 of the order the Ld.CIT(A) held as follows. “4.5 The above decision is squarely applicable in the instant case. Proviso below sec 143(2) (ii) clearly says that no notice under clause (ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. Further, sub section IB of section 139 clearly provides that return of income furnished by way of e- return shall be deemed to be return furnished u/s 139(1) and provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. In view of above, it is clear the e-return filed by the appellant on 30.09.2009 is a valid return and in view of the proviso below 143(2)(ii) the notice u/s 143(2) ought to have been served on the 2 appellant on or before 30.09.2010. Therefore, the notice u/s 143(2) issued by the AO on 05. 09.2011 is barred by limitation. Further, since the appellant objected to the initiation of proceedings by the A.O. u/s 143 (2) by its letter dated 14.10.2011 before the completion of assessment u/ s 143 (3) on 21/12/2011, therefore, provisions of section 292 BB will not be applicable. In view of the above factual and legal position, as there was no valid service of notice u/s 143(2), therefore, the assessment framed by the A.O. was invalid. As such, order passed by the AO is bad in law and it is quashed. As the order is bad in law, therefore, I do not find the need to consider the other grounds of appeal on merit.”

4. We find no infirmity in this order of the Ld.CIT(A). Hence we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue by holding that the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act is barred by limitation.

Pronounced in the Open Court on 20th July, 2016.