THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BARODA vs. M/S. AJWA FUN WORLD & RESORT LIMITED, BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 563/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 October 2017AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the statutory time limit, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was quashed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and issued a notice under Section 148. The assessee filed a return in response. However, the notice under Section 143(2) was issued beyond the prescribed time limit.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings are vitiated due to the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) beyond the prescribed time limit after a return was filed in response to a notice under Section 148.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

ITA No. 563/Ahd/2015 DCIT vs. Ajwa Fun World Reseort Ltd Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Mahavir Prasad JM]

ITA No. 563/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2008-09

DCIT .......…………......Appellant Circle 1(1)(1) Vadodara Vs.

M/s. Ajwa Fun World & Resort Ltd .......................Respondent PO Ajwa Compound, Ajwa-Nimeta Road, At. Ajwa, Vadodra – 391 510 [PAN : AABCA 7951 N]

Appearances by: VK Singh for the appellant NS Porwal for the respondent

Date of concluding the hearing : 16.10.2017 Date of pronouncing the order : 27.10.2017

O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, AM: 1. This appeal, filed by the Assessing Officer, is directed against the order dated 26.12.2014 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

When this appeal was called out for hearing, learned counsel for the assessee pointed out that this is a case in which admittedly notice under Section 143(2) was not issued within time, after filing of income-tax return in response to notice under Section 147, and the issue is thus fully covered, in favour of the assessee, by binding judicial precedents.

3.

Learned Departmental Representative could not point out any infirmity in the stand of the learned counsel. He, however, relies upon the stand of the Assessing Officer.

4.

We find that learned CIT(A), while quashing the impugned order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, has observed as follows:-

ITA No. 563/Ahd/2015 DCIT vs. Ajwa Fun World Reseort Ltd Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 2 of 2 “3.2 It can be seen from the above that the notice u/s 143(2) r.w.s. 147 was issued by the AO on 08/01/2014 i.e. after the expiry of six months from the end of the Financial Year (i.e. 2012-13) in which the return of income was filed by the appellant in pursuance to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Thus, it can be said that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the AO within the time limit as prescribed as per proviso to section 143(2)(ii) of the IT Act. In view of this it is held that the notice u/s 143(2) as issued by the AO to the appellant pursuance to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act is barred by limitation and therefore proceedings u/s 143(3) came to an end and the matter became final. Thus, it is held that the reopening of assessment as made by the AO in the case of appellant for the year under consideration is bad in law. In this regard the support is drawn from the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs C. Palaniappan, 284 ITR 257 and from another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan, 281 ITR 444. Thus, the grounds of appeal from 1 to 1.3 of the appellant are allowed.”

5.

We see no infirmity in the stand so taken by the CIT(A). When admittedly notice under Section 143(2) has not been issued within permissible time limit, even though in respect of return in response to notice under Section 147, there is no occasion for framing of an assessment under Section 143(3). Learned CIT(A) thus rightly quashed the order.

6.

In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.

7.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 27th October, 2017.

Sd/- Sd/-

Mahavir Prasad Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the 27th day of October, 2017 **bt Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →