2015 (10) TMI 1765 - HC - Income Tax

High Court affirms ITAT decision, deems reassessment order invalid without notice under Section 143(2)

PR. Commissioner of Income Tax-08 Versus Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the ITAT's decision. It held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) rendered the ... Reopening of assessment - notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was also never served on the Assessee - Held that:- no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Assessee after 16th December 2010, the date on which the Assessee informed the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. The resultant position is that as far as the present case is concerned the failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act subsequent to 16th December 2010 when the Assessee made a statement before the AO to the effect that the original return filed should be treated as a return pursuant to a notice under Section 148 of the Act, is fatal to the order of re-assessment. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved:1. Failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of reassessment order without serving notice under Section 143(2).3. Compliance with procedural requirements for completing assessment under Section 148 of the Act.Issue 1: Failure to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act:The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee raised a contention that in the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, the reassessment order was invalid. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had held that no specific notice under Section 143(2) was required, and the non-issuance of such notice did not render the reassessment invalid. However, the ITAT allowed the Assessee's appeal, stating that compliance with the procedure under Section 143(2) was mandatory for completing the assessment under Section 148 of the Act. The ITAT concluded that without issuing a notice to the Assessee before completing the reassessment, the reassessment would not be legally sustainable.Issue 2: Validity of reassessment order without serving notice under Section 143(2):The High Court examined various judgments, including the decision in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon, to determine the significance of serving a notice under Section 143(2) before finalizing a reassessment. The Court noted that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) after the Assessee informed the Assessing Officer that the original return should be treated as filed pursuant to the notice under Section 148 was fatal to the reassessment order. The Court referred to the case of DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, where it was held that serving the notice under Section 143(2) was mandatory after scrutinizing the Assessee's return.Issue 3: Compliance with procedural requirements for completing assessment under Section 148 of the Act:The Court discussed the interplay of Sections 143(2) and 148 of the Act based on decisions from different High Courts. It was observed that sending a notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory period specified under Section 148 was mandatory. The Court emphasized that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) before finalizing the reassessment order would invalidate the assumption of jurisdiction. The Court also highlighted the importance of following procedural requirements, such as serving notices, to ensure the validity of assessment and reassessment proceedings.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, stating that there was no legal infirmity in the ITAT's order. The Court held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) to the Assessee after a certain date, as required by law, rendered the reassessment order invalid. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of complying with procedural requirements, such as serving notices, to uphold the validity of assessment and reassessment processes under the Income Tax Act.