Invalid Notice Leads to Quashed Reassessment: Deemed Dividends Issue Unresolved

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings due to the invalid issuance of the notice under Section 143(2) beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, the issues regarding the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) on deemed dividends were not addressed. The reassessment order was declared void and set aside on 11th Jan 2021.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Applicability of Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act regarding deemed dividends.
3. Timeliness and validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Application of Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Reassessment Proceedings under Section 148:
The assessee challenged the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 was issued on 06/03/2014 and received by the assessee on 12/03/2014. The assessee filed a return in response to this notice on 25/03/2014. According to the provisions, the notice under Section 143(2) should have been issued within six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed, i.e., by 30/09/2014. However, the notice was issued on 11/03/2015, making it beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal concluded that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the belated issuance of the notice under Section 143(2).

2. Applicability of Section 2(22)(e) Regarding Deemed Dividends:
The assessing officer had invoked Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act, treating the loan advanced by Nitesh Estates Pvt. Ltd. to Nitesh Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as deemed dividends in the hands of the assessee, who held substantial interest in both companies. The CIT(A) upheld this view, stating that the assessee, being a major shareholder in both companies, attracted the provisions of Section 2(22)(e). However, the assessee argued that the loan was advanced to a non-shareholder entity and thus could not be taxed as deemed dividends. The Tribunal did not adjudicate this issue on merits since the reassessment proceedings were already quashed on procedural grounds.

3. Timeliness and Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 143(2):
The Tribunal emphasized that the notice under Section 143(2) issued on 11/03/2015 was beyond the statutory period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was filed (25/03/2014). The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal, which held that the issuance of notice beyond the prescribed period is invalid and affects the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. Consequently, the reassessment order dated 19/03/2015 was quashed and set aside.

4. Application of Section 292BB:
The revenue argued that the error in issuing the notice could be rectified under Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 292BB only insulates the assessing officer from the proof of service of notice and does not validate the issuance of a notice beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's argument and upheld that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to the belated issuance of the notice under Section 143(2).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, quashing the reassessment proceedings on the grounds of invalid issuance of notice under Section 143(2) beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, the issues on merits, including the applicability of Section 2(22)(e) regarding deemed dividends, were not adjudicated. The order pronounced on 11th Jan 2021 declared the reassessment order as void and set aside.

---