“final assessment order”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C4,041 judgments

The decision most relied on for final assessment order is Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO (106 ITR 1), cited in 486 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on final assessment order

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO

106 ITR 1 · 1977 · Supreme Court

486

citing judgments

The principle of finality dictates that stale issues should not be reactivated, and lapse of time brings repose to judicial and quasi-judicial controversies. A Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the Assessing Officer's unless the assessment order is legally erroneous, not merely less elaborate, thus limiting revisionary powers under Section 263.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) ltd.

445 ITR 537 · 2022 · High Court

269

citing judgments

The time limit for the Assessing Officer to pass a final assessment order under Section 144C(13) following directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel is determined by the specific provisions of Section 153, particularly Section 153(2A).

CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd.

376 ITR 456 · 2015 · Supreme Court

221

citing judgments

The requirement to file a certificate or form (e.g., Form 10CCB, 10-IC) along with the return of income for claiming a deduction (e.g., under sections 80-IB, 115BAA) is directory regarding its timing. Such a deduction is allowable if the requisite form is filed before the final order of assessment, as procedural requirements should not override substantive benefits.

Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain

259 ITR 449 · 2003 · Supreme Court

147

citing judgments

Section 144C(4) uses a non-obstante clause to expedite the final assessment order, requiring the Assessing Officer to pass it immediately upon acceptance or lack of objection to the TPO's order, irrespective of broader time limits under Section 153.

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP

369 ITR 113 · 2014 · High Court

140

citing judgments

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India

388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd. v. ACIT

390 ITR 167 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to issue notice under section 143(2) before finalizing a reassessment order under section 147 is a fatal jurisdictional error, and this defect cannot be cured by invoking section 292BB of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, such a reassessment order is not sustainable in law.

Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation

111 ITR 312 · 1978 · High Court

citing judgments

When setting aside an assessment under Section 263(1) and directing a fresh assessment, the Commissioner need not record final conclusions or express final opinions on controversial points. It also interprets 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' as meaning the assessment order is not in accordance with law, leading to the non-realization of lawful revenue.

Judgments citing final assessment order

Hp India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 524/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.524/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Hp India Sales Private The Joint Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income-Tax, Ltu V. Bangalore. Hewlett-Packard India Sales Private Limited), 24 Salarpuria Area, Hosur Main Road, Adugodi Bangalore – 560 030. Pan : Aaacc9862F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj Jain, Sri.Lalit Attal & Sri.Karon Dhanuka, Advoicates Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 03.01.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Import Of Computer Peripherals From Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) For Sale In India & Also Rendered Certain Support Services. The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2012-2013 Was Filed On 29.02.2012, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.544,61,99,276. The Return Was Revised On 25.03.2014

For Appellant: Sri.Ajay Vohra, Senior Counsel / Sri. Neeraj JainFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92BSection 92C

Hearing : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 03.01.2017 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2012-2013. 2. The brief facts ... given to the assessee by deleting the disallowance of excess depreciation on motor vehicles. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the impugned final assessment order was passed. Aggrieved by the final assessment order dated 03.01.2017, the assessee has filed the present appeal raising the following grounds:- “General Ground

Dell India Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 562/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92C

Padmavathy S., Accountant Member These cross appeals by the assessee and revenue are directed against final assessment order dated 29.01.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The relevant assessment year is 2010-11. 2. The brief facts of the case are that ... vide its directions dated 30.12.2014, granted partial relief. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 29.01.2015 in which the aggregate TP adjustment was reworked to Rs. 14,51,54,329/-. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the Assessee has filed

Tekla India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 211/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 40

17/08/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned final assessment order dated 02/12/2015, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income ... holding that the assessee has failed to satisfy „benefit test‟ and the „willingness to pay test‟. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned final assessment order dated 02/12/2015. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative („learned AR‟) submitted that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4323/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

illegal in as much as the conditions laid down in section 92C(3) are not satisfied before the passing of the final Assessment Order. (viii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Transfer Pricing adjustments cannot be made without arriving at the finding that the intention

Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4221/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 92C

M/S. Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2570/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Hearing : 03-08-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 16-08-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is filed by assessee against final assessment order dated 23/10/2019 passed by the Ld.DCIT, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bangalore on following grounds of appeal: “Based on the facts and circumstances

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It) 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5129/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

Order – 10/08/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 19/05/2017, passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the Assessing Officer ... case for assessment year 2012–13 rejected the objections filed by the assessee. In conformity, the Assessing Officer, inter-alia, passed the impugned final assessment order. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. During the course of hearing, Shri Madhur Agarwal, learned counsel for appearing

Novo Nordisk India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 611/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

making disallowance of ESOP expenses and discount expenses. The assessee raised objections before the DRP, who confirmed the order of the AO. Consequently final assessment order was passed, against which assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Disallowance of discount/rebate/sales commission u/s. 40(a)(ia) 5. The assessee is engaged ... Income Tax Act and Rule No. 10RA of the Income Tax Rules.” 20. The ld. AR submitted that the AO in the final assessment order has considered the income as per modified return, but has inadvertently added the TP adjustment of Rs.93.44 crores. He submitted that the TP adjustment

M/S. Onmobile Global Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 5(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2560/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

Assessee’s objections to a large extent while granting marginal relief. Pursuant to the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order dated 28.11.2018 in which the TP adjustment was reduced to Rs. 95,04,68,087/-. The disallowance of depreciation and disallowance under Section ... came to be sustained. 7. Aggrieved by the final assessment order, the Assessee filed the appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Transfer Pricing adjustment - Ground Nos.1 to 19 8. Though the Assessee raised 19 grounds with regard to the transfer pricing adjustment, during the course of hearing

M/S Onmobile Global Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 244ASection 32

Nuance Transcription Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 M/S.Nuance Transcription The Assistant Commissioner Services India Private Limited Of Income-Tax, Circle 5(1)(1) V. Bangalore. First Floor, Block B, Salarpuria Aura, Khata No.434/170 Marathahalli-Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Kaverappa Layout Bangalore – 560 103. Pan : Aaacf3465F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Vishal Kalra, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Harishchandra Naik, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2022 Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 22.11.2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2012-2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In Providing Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites) To Focus Enterprises Limited, Usa, Which Is An Associate Enterprise (Ae) Of The Assessee. For The Assessment Year 2012-2013, The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income Of Rs.23,99,94,900. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 2 It(Tp)A No.173/Bang/2017. M/S.Nuance Transcription Services India Private Limited. 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Dated 14.08.2013 Was Served. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Entered Into International Transactions With Its Ae. Accordingly, The Case Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The International Transaction Undertaken By The Assessee With Its Ae’S. The Tpo Vide Order Dated 28.01.2016, Passed U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act, Proposed The Following Tp Adjustments:-

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Harishchandra Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 92C

Hearing : 28.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against final assessment order dated 22.11.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2012-2013. 2. The brief facts ... Rs.5,47,65,344. The A.O. passed the 3 IT(TP)A No.173/Bang/2017. M/s.Nuance Transcription Services India Private Limited. impugned final assessment order dated 22.11.2016 making TP adjustment of Rs.9,62,52,440, as under:- Particulars Amount (INR) Returned income under 23,99,94,900 the normal provisions

Polycom Technology Centre, Delhi vs. Nationa E- Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 944/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

made addition of Rs. 5,17,24,272/- as per the provisions of sec.92CC of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has passed final assessment order making addition of Rs.19,20,39,380/- towards transfer pricing adjustment, as initially made by him in the draft assessment order. Accordingly learned ... also been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the remand report dated 1.1.2021 furnished by him to the learned DRP. However, in the final assessment order dated 30.3.2021, we notice that the Assessing Officer did not taken into account the APA entered by the assessee with CBDT and has made

Yokogawa India Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 234BSection 40A(2)

Rs.5,97,12,376/-. The assessee company had not filed objections against the draft assessment order Subsequently, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order u/s 143(3) read with section I44C of the Act on 23.01.2012 making following adjustments / disallowances / additions: o Transfer pricing adjustment ... amounting to Rs 3,06,835/-; and o Disallowance of expenditure on purchase of software amounting to Rs 5,720/- 3. Against the final assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A) he partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the order

M/S. Airbus Group India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2385/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92D

Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed by DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bangalore. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- The grounds mentioned herein below are independent and without ... That the draft of the Assessment Order passed under section 144C of the Act is time barred and resultantly final assessment order is invalid being null and void. Grounds relating to transfer pricing matters 3. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Learned DRP erred

DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Credit Suisse Ag, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 14/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 5(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

regarding the deductibility of interest in the hands of CSMB. The ld.AR drew the attention of the Bench to page 29 of the final assessment order containing the computation of income where the ld. AO had only proposed to add the interest received by the overseas branches as the income

M/S. Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited (Formerly Known As Tesco Hindustan Service Centre Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2387/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 40

affirmed the addition. 11.2 In this regard, Ld. A.R. submitted that pursuant to passing of the final assessment order, the Appellant entered into an Advance Pricing Agreement, covering the subject assessment year. In terms of the agreement, for the purpose of computing the operating profit margin, the operating expense

M/S Tesco Bengaluru Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2898/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 40

Hempel Singapoe Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT (International Taxation)-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1205/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Selvamini, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9

Order – 01/08/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the final assessment order dated 19/04/2021, passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income ... protect the interest of the Revenue. 6. In conformity with the directions issued by the learned DRP, the Assessing Officer vide impugned final assessment order dated 19/04/2021, attributed additional profit at 25% of sales value to the assessee‟s PE in India. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before

Ksb Ltd. (Earlier Known As "Ksb Pumps Ltd."), Pune vs. The Dy CIT, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac) Delhi, Mumbai

ITA 1210/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 253(1)(d)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

learned AO has: A. The Final Assessment Onjer passed is infructuous in nature and ought to be quashed: 1. Erred in passing the final assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act along with notice of demand on 22 April ... February 2021, paid the disputed taxes on 24 April 2021 and filed Form 4 on 30 April 2021, thereby rendering the final assessment order along with the notice of demand bad in law and infructuous, which is ought to be quashed. B. General Grounds 2. Without prejudice to the abovementioned

M/S. Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 475/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35

front against which the assessee filed its objections before the DRP. In pursuance of the directions of the DRP, the AO passed the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act dated 14.2.2018. 3. The CIT issued a show cause notice to the assessee with respect