Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal, upholds quashing of re-assessment proceedings for multiple years.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the re-assessment proceedings for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2010-2011. The Tribunal found that there was a lack of new tangible material, an invalid sanction under section 151, and a failure to issue a mandatory notice under section 143(2). As a result, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings and maintaining the quashing of the re-assessment proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the assessment order due to the alleged failure of the assessee to file a return of income in response to notice under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Ignoring provisions of section 282BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Reopening of the case based on new facts and evidence from a survey action under section 133A and findings during earlier assessment proceedings.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the Assessment Order:
The Revenue raised concerns that the CIT(A) erred in law and facts by quashing the assessment order, arguing that the assessee never filed the return of income in response to the notice under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) found that the original return was filed under section 139(1) on 31.08.2007. The CIT(A) observed that the A.O. failed to bring on record how and what income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure. Moreover, no tangible material was found to initiate proceedings against the assessee. The CIT(A) noted that once the original assessment under section 153C was quashed, the law does not permit reopening the assessment unless fresh tangible material is available. The CIT(A) also found the sanction granted under section 151(1) to be invalid and quashed the re-assessment proceedings.

2. Ignoring Provisions of Section 282BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) ignored the provisions of section 282BB. However, it was clarified that section 282BB does not exist in the statute. The relevant provision is section 292BB, which deems notice to be valid in certain circumstances. However, this provision does not apply when no notice under section 143(2) has been issued. The CIT(A) verified the assessment records and found no notice under section 143(2) issued by the A.O., rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid and the re-assessment proceedings quashed.

3. Reopening of the Case Based on New Facts and Evidence:
The Revenue argued that the case was reopened based on new facts and evidence from a survey action under section 133A and findings during earlier assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) found that the A.O. relied on observations from the original assessment order, which was quashed due to incorrect jurisdiction under section 153C. The CIT(A) noted that the A.O. failed to present new tangible material to justify reopening the case. The CIT(A) also found the approval for notice under section 148 invalid as it was given mechanically without independent application of mind. Further, the CIT(A) emphasized the necessity of issuing a notice under section 143(2) after the assessee requested the original return to be treated as filed in response to the notice under section 148. The absence of such notice invalidated the re-assessment proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the re-assessment proceedings due to the lack of new tangible material, invalid sanction under section 151, and failure to issue a mandatory notice under section 143(2). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for the assessment years 2007-2008 to 2010-2011, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings and maintaining the quashing of the re-assessment proceedings.

---