Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Order of the Ld.CIT(A)-3, Coimbatore in IT Appeal No.600/14-15 dated 27.11.2015 for the AY 2012-13 and is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-3, Coimbatore in IT Appeal No.600/14-14 dated 27.11.2015 for the AY 2012-13. CO No.56/Mds/2016 filed by the Revenue in the Appeal No.351/Mds/2016 for the AY 2012-13. ITA No.3192/Mds/2016 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-3, Coimbatore in appeal No.388/15-16 dated 05.08.2016 for the AY 2013-14.
2. Shri Narendra Kumar Naik, JCIT represented on behalf of the Respondent and Shri S. Sridhar, Adv., represented on behalf of the Appellant.
ITA Nos.22 & 351/Mds/2016 & CO No.56/Mds/2016 (in for the AY 2012-13:
3. It was fairly agreed by the Ld.AR that in the Cross Objection No.56/Mds/2016, the same was in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
It was further submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee is in the business of construction of multi storied buildings and sale of plots. It was a ITA No.22/Mds/2016 & CO No.56/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos.351 & 3192/Mds/2016 :- 3 -: submission that the AY 2012-13 was the first year of business of the assessee. It was a submission that the assessee had filed original return of income u/s.139(1) on 13.09.2012. There was a survey u/s.133A on 02.11.2012. The assessee had filed a revised return u/s.139(5) on 30.11.2012 disclosing an income of Rs.5,67,630/-. It was a further submission that subsequently the second revised return was filed by the assessee on 26.02.2014 declaring Nil income. It was a submission that the AO had issued notice u/s.143(2) on 12.09.2013 in response to the return filed by the assessee on 30.11.2012. It was a submission that no notice u/s.143(2) was issued by the AO in respect of the revised return filed on 26.02.2014. It was a submission that once revised return was filed the earlier returns stands effaced. It was a submission that as no notice u/s.143(2) had been issued in respect of the return filed on 26.02.2014, the assessment was liable to be annulled. It was a submission that the assessment was getting time barred on 31.03.2015.
It was a further submission that the factum of non-issuance of notice u/s.143(2) was also brought to the attention of the AO vide letter dated 27.03.2015 in response to the show cause notice issued by the AO dated 23.03.2015. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that in the Assessment Order, the AO recognized the existence of the revised return filed on 26.02.2014 by e-filing at Page No.4 Para No.6 of the Assessment Order. It was a further submission that at Page No.33 Para No.14, the AO considered the objection of the assessee in respect of non-issuance of notice u/s.143(2).
ITA No.22/Mds/2016 & CO No.56/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos.351 & 3192/Mds/2016 :- 4 -:
It was a submission that the AO did not reject the revised return filed by the assessee on 26.02.2014 but has considered the data disclosed in the revised return filed on 26.02.2014 but had rejected on merits, the results admitted and the method of accountancy adopted in the said return. It was a submission that the notice u/s.143(2) having not been issued in respect of the return filed on 26.02.2014, the assessment was liable to be annulled.
4. In reply, Ld.DR submitted that the assessee had objected to the non-issuance of notice u/s.143(2) only on 27.03.2015 which is also extracted by the AO in Page No.27 of this order. It was a further submission that the assessee having been granted substantial opportunities as has been extracted by the AO in Page No.6 of this Order, it was a submission that the assessment was liable to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the last revised return filed by the assessee on 26.02.2014. This was admittedly a valid revised return. The AO has also not rejected the revised return. The assessee has also given his Explanation for filing the said revised return.
In fact, after the said revised return was filed, notice u/s.142(1) has been issued on 10.12.2014 and show cause notice have been issued on 23.12.2014 and on 12.03.2015. In response to the show cause notice issued by the AO on 23.03.2015, intimating the assessee to provide his response by 27.03.2015, the assessee has intimated that the notice
ITA No.22/Mds/2016 & CO No.56/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos.351 & 3192/Mds/2016 :- 5 -: u/s.143(2) has not been issued on the assessee within the prescribed time. In fact, before the show cause notice being issued by the AO, the assessee never had an opportunity to intimate the AO that notice u/s.143(2) had not been issued. A perusal of the provisions of Sec.143(2) shows that the said notice is not assessment year specific but it is return specific. Its time limit is computed from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. It is mandatory for the issuance of notice u/s.143(2) in the event that the AO proposes to make assessment u/s.143(3). In the present case, the AO having not issued notice u/s.143(2) in respect of a valid revised return filed on 26.02.2014 and more so, the said return have not been treated as invalid, the consequential assessment is bad in law, in view of the principles laid down in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362 (SC). Further, in view of the position in law that if a revised return is filed u/s.139(5) and if such return is a valid return then the assessment can be completed only on the basis of such revised return as has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 316, the assessment is liable to be annulled.
In these circumstances, as notice u/s.143(2) has not been issued in respect of the valid revised return filed by the assessee u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014, the consequential Assessment Order u/s.143(3) dated
ITA No.22/Mds/2016 & CO No.56/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos.351 & 3192/Mds/2016 :- 6 -: 30.03.2014 for the AY 2012-13, in the case of the assessee is bad in law and stands annulled.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in is stands allowed, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.351/Mds/2016 is stands dismissed and the CO No.56/Mds/2016 filed by the assessee is stands dismissed.
ITA No.3192/Mds/2016 for the AY 2013-14:
In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in cancelling the Assessment Order on the ground that notice u/s.143(2) has been issued in respect of revised return filed but the assessment had been completed on the basis of the original return filed.
It was a submission that the assessee had filed his return of income on 29.09.2013 originally u/s.139(1) admitting a total income of Rs.4,54,780/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014 admitting NIL income. Notice u/s.143(2) had been issued on 10.09.2014 being after the filing of the revised return u/s.139(5) on 26.02.2014. However, when completing the assessment, the AO rejected the results admitted and the method of accounting adopted in the return filed on 26.02.2014 for the AY 2013-14 and completed the assessment by considering the return of income filed on 29.09.2013. It was a submission that Ld.CIT(A) had annulled the assessment by holding that the Assessment Order was made u/s.143(3) on the basis of original return
ITA No.22/Mds/2016 & CO No.56/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos.351 & 3192/Mds/2016 :- 7 -: filed on 29.09.2013 in connection with which no notice u/s.143(2) has been served. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be reversed.
In reply, the Ld.AR vehemently supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of Para No.5.1 to 5.4 of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which is extracted below:
5.1 The settled position in law is that if a revised return is filed on section 139 (5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, assessment can be completed only on the basis of revised return and not otherwise [Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2012) 343 ITR 316 (On)]. As per the scope of section 139, once the original return has been filed within due date the assesseee can furnish a revised return/s at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. Once the revised return is filed, it replaces the original return filed. In view of this, the stand taken by the assessing officer vide paragraph 22 of the assessment order in treating the original return dated 29/09/2013 as valid one when the revised return has been filed on 26/02/2014 is legally incorrect. The elaboration by the Assessing Officer that only one notice under section 143(2) need to be issued for one assessment year irrespective of any number of returns filed is also not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 143(2) (i) clearly states as under –
143 (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the AO shall,-
(i) Where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, served on the assesseee a notice specifying particulars of such claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief and require him, on a date to be specified therein to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence or particulars specified therein or on which the assesseee may rely, in support of such claim”.
5.2 This makes it amply clear that notice under section 143 (2) is issued in respect to a return of income and not with respect of assessment year. In the instant case, notice under section under 143 (2) dated 10-09-2014, has been served in connection with the return of income submitted by the appellant on 26-02-2014, but the assessment has been proceeded with in relation to original return filed on 29-09-2013 for which no notice under section 143 (2) has been served.
5.3 The assessment suffers on four grounds from the legal angle -
Notice under section 143(2) is issued/served in connection with a return of income filed and not in connection with an assessment year. There can be more than one returns filed for an assessment year. It has been held that the effective return for the purposes of assessment is return filed ultimately by the ITA No.22/Mds/2016 & CO No.56/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos.351 & 3192/Mds/2016 :- 8 -:
assesseee on basis of which he wants his income to be assesseed. (Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (90 ITR 236 (Allahabad).
In connection with the original return filed on 29-09-2013, no notice under section 143 (2) has served. Service of notice under section 143 (2) is mandatory for completing assessment under section 143(3). The Apex Court has decided in ACIT vs Hotel Ble Moon (321 ITR 362) (SC) that issue of notice under section 143 (2) is mandatory for completing an assessment under section 143 (3) under Chapter IV of the Income Tax Act,1961, and extended this to Block Assessments to be made under Chapter IVB of the Income Tax Atc,1961.
The revised return filed under section 139(5) in connection with which notice under section 143(2) was served has not been proceeded with further for completing assessment under section 143(3).
If the Assessing Officer had intended to reject the revised return of income filed on 26.02.20 14, notice under section 143 (2) should not have been served in connection with that return of income but in connection with the original return of income filed on 29.09.2013, on the basis of which assessment order under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act,, 1961, has been made. 5.4 In view of the above facts and circumstances, the assessment order made under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, statedly on the basis of original return on income filed on 29-09-2013, in connection with which no notice under section 143 (2) has been served is null and void. Since the assessment order is null and void in the eyes of law for non compliance of mandatory provisions for assessment procedure under the Income Tax Act, 1961, other grounds are not discussed.
The above shows that the Ld.CIT(A) considered the issue in its entirety in detail. It is also noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed judicial discipline in applying the principles laid down in the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Orissa Rural Housing Development Corporation Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 316 has also the decision of the Allahabad Hon’ble High Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 90 ITR 236 (Allahabad) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362 (SC). The Revenue has not able to point out any error in the findings arrived by the Ld.CIT(A). This being so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue.
ITA No.22/Mds/2016 & CO No.56/Mds/2016 (in ITA Nos.351 & 3192/Mds/2016 :- 9 -: 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on June 19, 2017, at Chennai.