2013 (12) TMI 445

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;2.(a) The proceedings u/s. 148 were invalid because they were initiated within one year of the filing the return of income on 29.10.2006. No escapement of income can be legally inferred while there was time available for issuing a notice u/s. 143(2) up to a period of 12 months commencing from the month i.e. October, 2007. in which the return was filed.      (b) The learned CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the assessment proceedings and the assessment order were valid even though the notice u/s. 143(2) was served on the assessee on 15-9- 2008 whereas the return was filed on 12-7-2007. The notice under S.143(2) was served more than 12 months after the month of filing of the return. The assessment proceedings and the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before this Tribunal. In view of the provisions of S.292BB, mistake on account of belated service of notice is a curable mistake. Since the assessee has not raised such a plea before the assessing officer, and fully participated in the assessment proceedings, the so-called mistake in serving the notice under S.143(2) of the Act, stood cured, on account of the assessee's action in ignoring the same and participating in the proceedings before the assessing officer. Learned counsel for the assessee has contended before us that the recently inserted provision of S.292BB, effective from 1st April, 2008, is applicable only from the assessment year 2008-09 only, and since the present appeal relates to assessment year 2005-06, the saving provision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of appellate proceedings has been taken away by the statute w.e.f. 1.4.2008. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in ground No.2(b) of the assessee, which is accordingly rejected. 6. The next issue involved in the present appeal relates to nonallowance of depreciation. On careful consideration of rival submission on this issue in the light of the orders of the lower authorities, we find that the business of the assessee was not yet set up by the end of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. This is the factual finding given by the CIT(A), against which no contrary evidence is produced before us. That being so, we find no infirmity in the action of the lower authorities in rejecting the claim of the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her items which came to the notice of the assessing officer in the course of re-assessment proceedings. Even though the learned counsel for the assessee pleaded that the said Explanation, being not on the statute book as on the date of impugned assessment, is not applicable to the present case, we find no force in the said argument, since it is a procedural one and it is applicable to all pending proceedings, it is applicable even to the present case of the assessee. 9. The next issue covered by ground No.5 of this appeal relates to the merits of the additions/disallowances made in the re-assessment, which have been sustained by the CIT(A). It is the contention of the assessee that the expenditure other than depreciation incurred, such as ....