Invalid Notice under Section 143(2) leads to assessment quashing; jurisdiction lacking as per Tribunal ruling.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee as the assessment was quashed due to the invalid Notice issued under Section 143(2) beyond the limitation period. The Tribunal held that the assessment was bad in law for want of jurisdiction based on the Delhi Special Bench decision in Rajkumar Chawla & Others Vs. ITO. The other grounds raised by the assessee regarding the validity of assessments framed under Section 143(3) and Notice issued under Section 142(1) were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of Notice issued under Section 142(1).
3. Validity of assessment due to Notice issued under Section 143(2) beyond the limitation period.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of assessment framed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C:
The first objection raised by the assessee concerns the validity of the assessment framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee contended that the search was conducted on 6.2.2012, and the Assessing Officer issued a Notice under Section 153C for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which is invalid because the assessment year is the same as the year in which the search was conducted. The Departmental Representative agreed that Section 153C does not apply for the assessment year under consideration, but argued that the mention of this Section in the order is merely a mistake covered under Section 292BB of the Act. The Tribunal found that since the search was conducted in the relevant previous year, Section 153C does not apply for the Assessment Year 2012-13. However, the mere mention of Section 153C does not render the assessment invalid as it was framed under Section 143(3) without any procedural defects. Therefore, this ground raised by the assessee was dismissed.

2. Validity of Notice issued under Section 142(1):
The second ground raised by the assessee was the invalidity of the Notice issued under Section 142(1). The assessee argued that since the return of income was already filed on 26.9.2012, the Notice issued on 12.9.2013 is invalid. The Departmental Representative contended that the return was filed electronically, and the Notice under Section 142(1) was rightly issued. The Tribunal concluded that even if the return was filed on 26.9.2012, the subsequent Notice under Section 142(1) does not affect the validity of the assessment framed under Section 143(3). Therefore, this ground also lacked merit and was dismissed.

3. Validity of assessment due to Notice issued under Section 143(2) beyond the limitation period:
The third ground concerned the validity of the assessment due to the Notice issued under Section 143(2) on 21.10.2013, which the assessee claimed was beyond the limitation period. The Departmental Representative argued that the limitation should be reckoned from 8.10.2013, when the assessee intimated the filing of the return. The Tribunal found that the return was filed electronically on 26.9.2012, and the limitation for issuing the Notice under Section 143(2) expired six months from 31.3.2013, i.e., on 30.9.2013. Therefore, the Notice issued on 21.10.2013 was beyond the limitation period, rendering the assessment invalid. The Tribunal cited the Delhi Special Bench decision in Rajkumar Chawla & Others Vs. ITO, which held that no assessment can be made if the Notice under Section 143(2) is invalid due to being issued beyond the limitation period. Consequently, the assessment framed was quashed as bad in law for want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
Since the assessment was quashed due to the invalid Notice under Section 143(2), the Tribunal did not address the other grounds raised by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 21st Nov., 2017.

---