BRIJ GOPAL CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 28.06.2022 for AY 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi has further erred both in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by the appellant company. 2.1 That finding of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that "reasons stated by the appellant for delay in filing of appeal cannot be considered as a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time and therefore cannot be condoned" is illegal, invalid and untenable. 3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi has further erred both in law and on facts by not adjudicating the M/S. Brij Gopal Construction Company Pvt. Ltd disallowance of Rs. 8,17,250/- made under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36(1)(va) of 21,0 the Act 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Delhi has also erred both in law and on facts by not adjudicating the disallowance of Rs.35,246/- on account of loss on sale of fixed assets.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -24, Delhi has failed to appreciate that intimation dated 22.10.2019 was made without granting opportunity much less fair meaningful and effective opportunity and therefore such an intimation is otherwise vitiated.

That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24 has failed to appreciate that intimation dated 22.10.2019 was made without jurisdiction; and therefore deserves to be quashed as such.

That various findings and, observations recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion; and factually incorrect, legally misconceived and, infact in disregard of binding judgment of jurisdictional High Court and; thus untenable.”

Suffice to say that in this case notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 22.09.2019 and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act has been issued to the assessee on 22.10.2019.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have pointed out that in a number of judgments several High Courts have consistently taken the view that once regular assessment proceedings have commenced

Even otherwise, the view taken by the Gujarat High Court seems to be correct on principle. There is no dispute that Section 143(1)(a) of the Act enacts a summary procedure for quick collection of tax and quick refunds. Under the scheme if there is a serious objection to any of the orders made by the Assessing Officer determining the income, it is open to the assessee to ask for rectification under Section 154. Apart therefrom, the provisions of Section 143(1)(a)(i) indicate that the intimation sent under Section 143(1)(a) shall be without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (2). The Legislature, therefore, intended that, where the summary procedure under Sub-section (1) has been adopted, there should be scope available for the Revenue, either suo motu or at the instance of the assessee to make a regular assessment under Sub-section (2) of Section 143. The converse is not available; a regular assessment proceeding having been commenced under Section 143(2), there is no need for a summary proceeding under Section 143(1)(a), 6. In the result, we see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. The appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.