Tribunal voids assessment due to lack of reasons, upholds notice validity.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) and rejected the assessee's argument regarding the date of furnishing the return. It deemed the approval for reopening the assessment under Section 148 as mechanical and lacking detailed reasons, thus declaring the assessment void ab initio. The Tribunal dismissed the timeliness argument for the assessment order and allowed the appeal, setting aside the tax authorities' orders.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice under Section 143(2) issued prior to the receipt of the return of income.
2. Validity of notice under Section 148 without obtaining appropriate approval from the Commissioner of Income-tax.
3. Timeliness of the assessment order under Section 153 of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notice under Section 143(2):
The assessee argued that the notice under Section 143(2) was issued before the return of income was received by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee filed a letter on 06-06-2014 requesting the AO to treat the original return filed on 30-10-2006 as the return in response to the notice under Section 148. The AO issued a notice under Section 143(2) on 16-06-2014, while the letter was received by the AO on 17-06-2014.

The Tribunal held that the date of filing at the ASK counter (06-06-2014) is considered the date of furnishing the return. The AO issued the notice under Section 143(2) after this date, thus complying with the provisions. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument, emphasizing that the internal date stamp of 17-06-2014 was irrelevant.

2. Validity of Notice under Section 148:
The assessee contended that the approval from the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment proceedings null and void. The AO reopened the assessment after four years, requiring the CIT's satisfaction on the reasons recorded by the AO.

The Tribunal examined the internal processing sheet and noted that the CIT merely wrote "Yes I am satisfied" without detailed reasons, which was deemed mechanical. The Tribunal referred to various case laws, including the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in S.Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd., which held that mechanical approval without detailed reasons invalidates the reopening.

The Tribunal concluded that the CIT did not apply his mind and granted approval mechanically, thus quashing the reopening proceedings and declaring the assessment void ab initio.

3. Timeliness of the Assessment Order:
The assessee argued that the assessment order was barred by limitation as it was handed over to the postal authorities on 08-04-2015, implying it was passed after 31-03-2015. The Tribunal found no credible material supporting this claim and rejected the ground, noting that the argument was based on inferences and conjectures.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal admitted the legal grounds raised by the assessee, quashed the reopening of assessment due to mechanical approval by the CIT, and declared the assessment void ab initio. The Tribunal did not find merit in the argument regarding the timeliness of the assessment order. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the orders of the tax authorities were set aside.

---