Tribunal cancels assessment order without notice: legal questions deemed settled

The Tribunal canceled the assessment order under sections 143(3)/147 due to the absence of a notice under section 143(2), supported by a previous judgment. The Court deemed questions related to the applicability of sections 292BB & 292B unsustainable, emphasizing the settled nature of the issue. Variations questioning the justification of the assessment order without a notice under section 143(2) were dismissed for lack of substantial legal questions. Judges stressed the need for advocates to be well-versed in legal matters and recent judgments, urging corrective measures for better administration of justice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the cancellation of an assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 due to the absence of a notice u/s 143(2), the applicability of sections 292BB & 292B, and the justification of the assessment order passed without issuing a notice u/s 143(2).

Cancellation of Assessment Order u/s 143(3)/147:
The Tribunal canceled the assessment order due to the absence of a notice u/s 143(2) for completion of the assessment, questioning the validity of the assessment. The Court referred to a previous judgment to support the decision, stating that the issue was already settled.

Applicability of Sections 292BB & 292B:
The second question pertained to the amendments to sections 292BB & 292B, effective from April 1, 2008, and their prospective application for the A.Y. 1999-2000. The Court indicated that this question was closely related to the previous issue and deemed it unsustainable.

Justification of Assessment Order without Notice u/s 143(2):
Questions three and four were considered as variations of the second issue regarding the necessity of issuing a notice u/s 143(2). The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of substantial questions of law, emphasizing the importance of legal knowledge for advocates representing the Revenue.

Separate Judgment by Judges:
The judges highlighted the importance of advocates being well-versed in recent judgments and legal matters, expressing concern over the lack of preparedness and legal knowledge displayed by an advocate in this case. They urged the Revenue Department and the Chairman of the CBDT to take corrective measures to ensure better administration of justice. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the Chairman, CBDT for further action.

---