ITO, WARD-18(3), NEW DELHI vs. NORM CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1008/DEL/2021Status: FixedITAT Delhi28 June 2023AY 2002-033 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not file a return in response to the notice issued under Section 148, a notice under Section 143(2) could not have been issued. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision was against the facts on record.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- made under Section 68 for unexplained share application money. The Revenue argued that the notice under Section 143(2) was not required as the assessee did not file a return in response to a notice under Section 148.

What were the issues?

Whether a notice under Section 143(2) is required when no return is filed in response to a notice under Section 148. The validity of the CIT(A)'s deletion of addition made under Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 148,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 06.06.2023Pronounced: 28.06.2023

ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-37, New Delhi dated 31.08.2020.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:

“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee thereby deleting the addition of Rs.4,00,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained share application money and share premium.

2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding in para 6.1 c) and para 7.2 b) of its order that….”In response the AR of the appellant submitted that return filed on 31.10.2002 be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148…”. Since vide letter dated 20.04.2007, the assessee did not state that the return filed u/s Norm Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 139 be treated as return u/s 148 and merely stated that “…..return of income for the assessment year 2002-03 was filed in time….” Hence, issue/service of notice u/s 143(2) was not required as there was no return in response to notice u/s 148.” 3. The provisions of Section 143(2) reads as under:

“Section 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 Assessing Officer or the prescribed income-tax authority, as the case may be, if, considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced before the Assessing Officer any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return:

Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of [three] months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.”

4.

On perusal of the record, we find that the assessee has not filed return in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence the notice u/s 143(2) could not have been issued. The adjudication of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is against the facts on record and hence the appeal of the revenue is hereby allowed.

Norm Consultants Pvt. Ltd. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/06/2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →