TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... s. 158BC. 1(e) The CIT(A) should have held from the aforesaid case law that even under s. 158BC, a duty is cast on the AO to serve a notice under s. 143(2) of the Act and as the said provision is mandatory, non-compliance thereof by the AO vitiates the assessment order itself." 2. The learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that in ground No. l(e), the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) holding that as the return under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 (Act), filed by the assessee, was beyond forty-five days being the time-limit prescribed under the Act. Therefore, the return filed was non est and, consequently, it was not a necessity for the AO to issue notice under s. 143(2) of the Act on the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative and I have also gone through the case law relied upon by him. To appreciate the position correctly, I have also gone through the entire case records of the appellant carefully. I find that after the search in appellant's case, a notice under s. 158BC of IT Act, 1961 dt. 31st May, 2000 was served on the appellant on 2nd June, 2000 whereby it was called upon to file return of income for the block period within 45 days of receipt of the notice. This period of 45 days is the maximum period allowable for filing of return as per cl. (a)(ii) of s. 158BC of the Act. There is no provision in IT Act which provides for filing of return in response to notice under s. 158BC after a period of 45 days. There is also no provision for filing of a revi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'non est in the eyes of law. Requirement of issue of notice under s. 143(2) flows from filing of a valid return. If the return is not a valid one; there is no necessity in law to issue a notice under s. 143(2) as per the ratio of decision in the case of CIT v. Girishchandran Haridas [1991] 99 CTR (Ker) 213 : [1992] 196 ITR 833 (Ker). This was a ease where the issue related to assessment made under s. 143(3), without issue of notice under s. 143(2) after a revised return was filed. The Hon'ble Court held that since revised return was not a valid return, the assessment could not be set aside on the ground that no notice under s. 143(2) was issued after filing of revised return. This means that issue of notice under s. 143(2) is essential onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., additional grounds of appeal are dismissed." 3. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches in the case of J.K. Developers (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT in IT(SS)A Nos. 167 & 225/Ahd/2003, vide order dt. 31st Aug., 2007, and submitted that the facts before the Tribunal in that case were that no notice under s. 143(2) of the Act was issued or served on the assessee before making the assessment under s. 158BC of the Act on 28th Feb., 2001, and the Tribunal, following the decision of the Hon'ble Guahati High Court in the case of Smt. Bandana Gogol v. CIT [2007] 209 CTR (Gau) 31 : [2007] 289 ITR 28 (Gau), cancelled the block assessment made by the AO. In the instant case of the assessee also, it can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see before making an assessment under s. 158BC of the Act for the block period. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the materials available on record. The undisputed facts are that a search and seizure operation under s. 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee. In pursuance to the same notice under s. 158BC was issued on 31st May, 2000 allowing 45 days time to the assessee to file the block return. No block return was filed within the time allowed under the notice. The return for block period was ultimately filed by the assessee on 10th Nov., 2000. Block assessment was completed by the AO on 30th Jan., 2001. The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that no notice bei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....block period. If it is taken that the return beyond the time prescribed in the notice is invalid or non est then the above enactment under s. 158BFA becomes redundant. It is an established rule of interpretation that one should not interpret a provision in such a manner so as to make what has been enacted in other provisions of the Act as redundant. The legislature does not enact anything in the statute without any meaning or purpose Thus, in our considered opinion a block return which is filed beyond the time-limit prescribed in the notice but before completion of the assessment is a valid return and the same cannot be ignored by the AO. Even in the instant case we find that the AO has duly taken into consideration the block return filed b....