TRUPTI MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,MARGAO vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

PDF · subscribers
ITA 283/PAN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 January 2023AY 1998-99Bench: SHRI S.S. GODARA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the impugned reassessment was quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 1998-99. The primary issue is the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

The key legal issue was whether the reassessment proceedings were valid without the issuance of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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, PANAJI BENCH “SMC”, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

1.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

This assessee‟s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th January, 2023.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →