ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK JAY PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA
The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated
ITA 339/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15
Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250
u/s 147 rw 143(3) of the Act, an ROI has always been filed by the assessee. In this case admittedly the Ld. AO did not have the ROI and thereby proceeded ahead to frame the assessment under section 144 of the Act, in an ex-parte manner. At this stage the relevant sections of the Act need
