Assessment order null without section 163 compliance, jurisdictional issues highlighted.

The case involved issues regarding the necessity of passing an order under section 163 before treating a party as a representative assessee. The appellant company challenged the assessment order due to the absence of a valid order under section 163, leading to jurisdictional issues. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court emphasized the importance of complying with procedural requirements, and the Tribunal upheld the decision that the assessment order was null and void without the necessary order under section 163. As a result, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed for multiple assessment years.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the following issues:
1. Whether the order under section 163 is required to be passed even when the appellant company has not replied to the show-cause notice.
2. Whether the appellant company was denied the opportunity of appeal against being treated as a representative assessee without the order under section 163.
3. Whether the assessment order passed under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 144C is void ab initio without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

Issue 1:
The appellant company challenged the findings of the CIT(A) regarding the necessity of passing an order under section 163 even if the company did not respond to the show-cause notice. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice to the appellant company, but no order under section 163 was passed, leading to jurisdictional issues in the assessment process.

Issue 2:
The appellant company contended that without the order under section 163, it was deprived of the opportunity to appeal against being treated as a representative assessee. Despite receiving notices and summons, the Assessing Officer failed to pass the required order under section 163, resulting in legal infirmity in the assessment order.

Issue 3:
The CIT(A) held the assessment order as void ab initio due to the absence of a valid order under section 163. The appellant argued that the assessment order, treating the company as a representative assessee, lacked jurisdiction without the necessary order under section 163, as mandated by law.

Key Points:
- The assessment order treating the appellant as a representative assessee without a separate order under section 163 lacked jurisdiction.
- The Hon'ble Bombay High Court precedent emphasized the importance of passing an order under section 163 before serving a notice under section 148 for representative assessment.
- The absence of a valid order under section 163 rendered the notice under section 148 invalid, as seen in relevant case law.
- The assessment made in the name of a dissolved entity and without the required order under section 163 was deemed null and void.
- The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to the unsustainable assessment order.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlighted the significance of complying with the procedural requirements under section 163 before treating a party as a representative assessee. The assessment order, lacking the essential order under section 163, was deemed legally infirm and unsustainable, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal across multiple assessment years.

---