Revenue's appeal dismissed for invalid assessment order due to failure to comply with statutory timelines. Assessee's Cross Objection rejected.

The appeal by the revenue challenging the annulment of the assessment order under sections 148/143(3) of the Income Tax Act was dismissed. The Court held that the assessment order was invalid due to the Assessing Officer's failure to comply with the statutory timeline for serving notice under section 143(2) within 12 months of the return filing month. The absence of evidence showing the AO's compliance with the CIT(A)'s order further supported the dismissal of the appeal. The Cross Objection by the assessee was also rejected.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the validity of the assessment order passed under section 143(3), compliance with the provisions of section 143(2), and the impact of the CIT(A)'s order dated 21-3-1995 on the assessment process.

Validity of Assessment Order under Section 143(3):
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) annulling the assessment order dated 30-3-1995, passed under sections 148/143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) held that the assessment order was not valid as notice under section 143(2) was served after the prescribed time limit of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return of income was filed. The AO's failure to comply with the proviso to section 143(2) rendered the assessment invalid.

Compliance with Provisions of Section 143(2):
The AO issued notice under section 143(2) on 9-1-1995, which was served on the assessee on 24-1-1995. However, the proviso to section 143(2) mandates that such notice must be served within 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished. As the notice was served after this period, the CIT(A) deemed the assessment order invalid due to non-compliance with statutory timelines.

Impact of CIT(A)'s Order dated 21-3-1995:
The ld. DR argued that the AO gave effect to the CIT(A)'s order dated 21-3-1995 by framing the assessment order on 30-3-1995. However, there was no evidence to support this claim as the AO did not mention the CIT(A)'s order in the assessment order. The absence of any reference to the CIT(A)'s directive in the assessment order indicated that the AO did not give effect to the order. Consequently, the contention that the AO followed the CIT(A)'s order could not be substantiated.

In conclusion, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and all grounds raised by the revenue were rejected. The Cross Objection of the assessee was also dismissed as it was raised in support of the CIT(A)'s order, which was upheld.

---