ITO v. R.K. GUPTA

PANKAJ DUTTA,DURGAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2206/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pankaj Dutta..........................................................................................Appellant Prop. Annapurna Construction, M-95A, Yuri Gagarin Path, Bidhannagore, Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Ahdpd1092P] Income Tax Officer...................…………………………………….........Respondent Ward 1(3), Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur - 713216 Appearances By: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2017 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit (Appeals) Durgapur Dated 31.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Additional Ground Of Appeal Which Reads As Follows: “Because That The Ld. Income Tax Officer Was Erred In Law As Well As In Facts In Passing Of The Order U/S 147/143(3) Dated 30Th March, 2015 Without Issue Of The Statutory Notice U/S 143(2) Of The It Act, 1961 & As Such His Reassessment Order Is Not Good In Law & Void Abinitio. 3. As This Is A Legal Ground, Challenging The Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer. As All The Facts Required To Adjudicate This Grounds

…section 143(2)---- Assessing Officer not representing before Commissioner (Appeals) that notice had been issued-----Reassessment order invalid due to want of notice under section 143(2)----Income Tax Act, 1961, ss 143, 147, 148(1) prov---- ITO vs R.K. GUPTA [308 ITR 49 (Delhi) Trib. 6 I.T.A. No. 2206/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 Pankaj Dutta. CIT vs Vishu & Co. Ltd. In ITA No. 470 of 2008 (2010) 230 CTR (Del) 62 Assessment – validity – Non Service of notice under section 143(2) within time – Notice served on the last date after office hours by affixture as no authorized person was present at assessee’s premises – i…