Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH “SMC”, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT
PER S.S. GODARA, JM :
This assessee‟s appeal for AY 1998-99 arises against the CIT(A), Panaji-1‟s order dated 24-08-2017 passed in case No.128/PNJ/07-08 in proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee has filed its petition dated 17.02.2022 seeking to raise an additional ground that both the learned lower authorities failure in issuing section 143(2) notice vitiates the entire assessment / re-assessment herein dated 31.03.2005. The Revenue vehemently opposed the assessee‟s foregoing petition at this alleged belated stage. I find no merit in the revenue‟s instant technical objection as this tribunal‟s landmark special bench decision in Allcargo Global Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 237 (Mumbai Trib); after considering NTPC vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), has settled the law that such a pure legal question very well be entertained in order to determine the correct tax liability of an assessee provided all the relevant facts are already on record.
Learned DR could hardly dispute that such a notice appears to have nowhere been issued going by the detailed assessment discussion dated 31.03.2005 despite the fact that the assessee‟s letter dated 07.03.2004 (in response to section 148 notice) had clearly submitted that its earlier original return dated 27.11.1998 be treated as the one filed in response to initiation of re-assessment proceedings.
Faced with the situation, I quote CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC), ACIT vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2013) 32 taxman.com 162 (Bom) to quash the impugned reopening itself for foregoing clinching reason. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.
This assessee‟s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th January, 2023.