TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng of the assessment and consequently making reassessment without complying with the statutory conditions prescribed under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment proceedings are bad in law and on facts as the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment do not meet the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the order assed by the AO despite the fact that the same has been passed without issue of statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition which was made by the AO despite the assessee bringing all material and evidences on record. 8. That the addition made by the CIT(A) is bad in law as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 31.12.2010, assessee filed the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who impugned order dated 31.10.2012 dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee. 4. Against the aforesaid order dated 31.12.2010 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the assessee argued only on the issue involved in ground no. 5 relating to non-service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act. Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that the assessment order has been passed without issuing the notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act. He stated that this Bench can peruse the assessment order and the record which clearly shows that the AO has not even issued the notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act before completion of the assessment in dispute. He submitted that the assessee has filed his written submissions on this issue before the Ld. First Appellate Authority but has also rejected the request of the assessee in routine manner by stating that non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) does not render the reassessment. Finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the law and the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee in the shape of Paper Book containing pages 1 to 179 attaching therewith the various documentary evidence supporting the claim of the assessee as well as the various decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court on the legal issue in dispute. No doubt assessee has raised 12 grounds of appeal in which the assessee challenged the non-service of the notice u/s. 148 dated 30.3.2010 which was received back unserved. In support of his contention he has also cited various decisions. Assessee has also challenged the addition in dispute on merit also by producing various documentary evidence supporting its claim before the Revenue Authority as well as before us in the shape of Paper Book, but he argued only on the issue involved in ground no. 5. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the arguments raised by the Ld. AR, we are of the view that the issue raised in ground No. 5 regarding the non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act which goes to the root of the matter, can be taken up first and decide according to the facts and circumstances of the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. 7.1 We have also perus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....un Goyal has created a number of private limited companies and firms for providing accommodation entries. The Directors of these companies were his employees who worked in his office as peons, receptionists etc. All the documents were got signed from these employees. "A number of Bank accounts in various banks were opened in the names of these companies and his employees, in which huge cash deposits were made. Later cheques were issued to various beneficiaries, disguising the whole transaction as genuine. All the companies floated by Sh. Tarun Goyal are not carrying out any genuine activity and are merely being used to provide accommodation entries. Hence, all the companies of Sh. Tarun Goyal are 'bogus'. All the companies are operating from the office of Sh. Tarun Goyal from 13/34, WEA, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and at his former office viz. 203, Dhaka Chambers, 2069/39, Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi. At the time of search on 15.9.2008 in the premises of Sh. Tarun Goyal, the statement on oath of the employees present at the premises of Sh. Tarun Goyal were recorded. These include Sh. Pramod Kumar, his peon, Sh. Harpreet Singh, Accountant. In their statements they stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge interest as per law. Initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 separately." 7.2 Keeping in view of the aforesaid assessment order, we are of the view that the AO has not issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act which is mandatory. We are also of the view that in completing the assessment u/s. 148 of the Act, compliance of the procedure laid down u/s. 142 and 143(2) is mandatory. As per record, we find that there was no notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act which is very much essential for reassessment and it is a failure on the part of the AO for not complying with the procedure laid down in section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. If the notice is not issued to the assessee before completion of the assessment, then the reassessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserve to be cancelled. In view of above facts circumstances of the present case, the issue in dispute raised in ground no. 5 relating to non service of the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is decided in favor of the assessee by declaring the assessment order dated 31.12.2010 passed u/s. 143(3) / 147 of the I.T. Act as invalid. Our view is supported by the various judgments of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of notice' under the provisions of Act. It does not lay down that if a mandatory notice is required to be issued by the assessing officer and it has not been issued within the period of limitation fixed under the law, then such notice shall be deemed to have been issued within time. It has been further held that resort cannot be taken by the Revenue to section 292BH to give a go-bye to mandatory requirement of issuance of notice within the statutory fixed by the proviso to section I43(2) of the Act." CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, High court of Allahabad. "In view of above submissions and case laws, it has been established that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued in the present case and therefore the impugned assessment is liable to be annulled." M/s Sapthagiri Finance and Investments vs. ITO: TC(A). No. 159 of 2006 dated 17.07.2012 (Mad HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289] Relevant para reproduced here under: "13. As far as the present case is concerned, the provisions of Section 148 also uses the expression "so far as may be apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under Section 139". Thus, understanding this provisions in the background of the d....