Assessment Order Invalid; Section 153C vs. 143(3)

The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order dated 18.12.2018 was invalid as it should have been framed under Section 153C and not Section 143(3). Consequently, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 was set aside. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and other grounds were treated as academic.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the assessment order under Section 143(3) versus Section 153C.
3. Issuance and timing of notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2).
4. Approval under Section 153D.
5. Scope of assessment confined to incriminating documents.
6. Proper enquiries or verification by the Assessing Officer.
7. Application of Section 50C and other related provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263, arguing that the statutory preconditions were not satisfied, rendering the order void. The appellant contended that the original assessment order dated 18.12.2018 was illegal and invalid, and therefore, could not be revised under Section 263. The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment order could indeed be challenged during the revisionary proceedings under Section 263, citing various judicial precedents.

2. Validity of the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) versus Section 153C:
The appellant argued that the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2017-18 should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 143(3), making the assessment order void ab initio. The Tribunal agreed, citing the Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgments in CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. and ARN Infrastructure India Ltd., which established that the six preceding assessment years should be reckoned from the date of the satisfaction note, not the date of search. Thus, the assessment for AY 2017-18 should have been framed under Section 153C.

3. Issuance and Timing of Notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2):
The appellant contended that no notice under Section 143(2) was issued after filing the return of income on 11.10.2018, making the assessment order dated 18.12.2018 without jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the notices under Section 143(2) were issued within the prescribed time limit, but the assessment should have been under Section 153C, rendering the assessment under Section 143(3) invalid.

4. Approval under Section 153D:
The appellant argued that the approval under Section 153D was invalid and illegal, vitiating the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the JCIT's approval was based on the material available on record and did not require a hearing with the assessee. However, since the assessment order itself was invalid, the approval under Section 153D was moot.

5. Scope of Assessment Confined to Incriminating Documents:
The appellant contended that the scope of the assessment should have been confined to incriminating documents found during the search of a third party. The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was invalid, this issue was academic.

6. Proper Enquiries or Verification by the Assessing Officer:
The PCIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because the AO did not make proper enquiries or verification. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed made enquiries, but since the assessment order was invalid, this issue was also academic.

7. Application of Section 50C and Other Related Provisions:
The PCIT found that the AO failed to invoke Section 50C(1) and 50C(2) regarding the valuation of land parcels, leading to under-assessment of income. The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was invalid, the PCIT's findings on this issue were not sustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order dated 18.12.2018 was invalid as it should have been framed under Section 153C and not Section 143(3). Consequently, the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 was set aside. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and other grounds were treated as academic.

---