2021 (10) TMI 281 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision to quash reassessment order for lack of Section 143(2) notice.

ITO Ward-2 (2) New Delhi Versus Altamash Township P. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment order due to the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) and dismissed the Revenue's ... Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non issue of notice u/s 143(2) - HELD THAT:- As in the remand report the Assessing Officer has not commented upon the query related to issuance of notice u/s 143(2). There was nothing on the record to show that 143(2) notice was issued to the assessee. Thus, at threshold itself the assessment proceedings becomes bad in law as held in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Silver Line [2015 (11) TMI 809 - DELHI HIGH COURT] upholding the decision of the Tribunal that the reassessment order cannot be passed without complying with the mandatory requirement of notice being issued by the AO to the assessee u/s 143(2) of the Act and, therefore, the reassessment order was legally unsustainable. CIT(A) has rightly quashed re-assessment order passed u/s. 147 and allowed the appeal of the assessee. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Issues:1. Validity of proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act due to non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2).2. Consideration of High Court's decision in a specific case by CIT(A).Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the CIT(A)'s order concerning the Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee, a private limited company in real estate business, had filed its return declaring NIL income for the year. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 in 2014, but the company's name had been struck off from ROC records since 2009-10. The company, through its authorized representative (AR), informed the Assessing Officer about this and requested a copy of the notice. Despite subsequent communications and submissions, the Assessing Officer made additions to the company's income, which led to the appeal before the CIT(A).2. During the appeal, the Revenue argued that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified due to the company's actions. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider a specific High Court decision and raised concerns about the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). On the other hand, the AR relied on the CIT(A)'s decision and highlighted that the High Court decision referred to by the Revenue was no longer valid law. The AR also cited other relevant court decisions in support of the appeal.3. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not address the query regarding the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) in the remand report. It was established that no such notice was issued to the assessee, rendering the assessment proceedings legally flawed. Citing precedent cases, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment order under Section 147. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s ruling.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment order due to the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal accordingly.