TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court remits case for proper adjudication on cross objections, quashes Tribunal order due to late notice issuance.</h1> <h3>Sri. M.R. Anandaram (HUF) Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 6 (3) (1), Bangalore.</h3> The High Court remitted the case back to the Tribunal for proper adjudication on the Tribunal's decision regarding cross objections. The Court did not ... Validity of reopening of assessment - Notice u/s 143(2) as barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary for us to deal with the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal dated 27.05.2016, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to adjudicate the issue whether the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 28.02.2013, to the assessee is barred by limitation and is contrary to provisions of the Act. Needless to state that the Tribunal itself shall decide the issue within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. The parties shall be at liberty to raise all legal contentions with regard to the aforesaid issue. Issues:1. Justification of Tribunal's decision on cross objection grounds.2. Validity of assuming jurisdiction under section 148.3. Adjudication of legal ground of reopening.4. Issuance of notice under section 143(2) within the time limit.Analysis:1. The appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed concerning the Assessment Year 2007-08, with substantial questions of law raised regarding the Tribunal's decision on cross objections. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not considering the grounds raised before it, leading to a perverse decision. The High Court noted the importance of addressing this issue and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for proper adjudication.2. The validity of assuming jurisdiction under section 148 was another crucial issue raised in the appeal. The appellant contended that mandatory conditions for assuming jurisdiction were not met, and thus, the reassessment proceedings should be quashed. However, the High Court did not delve into this issue as it focused on the matter related to the issuance of notice under section 143(2) within the prescribed time limit.3. The legal ground of reopening the assessment was also a point of contention. The Tribunal was criticized for not adjudicating this fundamental issue that goes to the root of the matter. However, due to the primary focus on the time limit for issuing the notice under section 143(2), the High Court did not address this specific concern in its judgment.4. The final issue revolved around the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) within the statutory time limit. The appellant argued that the notice dated 28.02.2013 was beyond the permissible period, rendering the assessment order invalid. The High Court agreed with this argument, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was quashed, and the matter was remitted back for a decision on the timeliness of the notice, with a directive to decide the issue within two months.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
