2015 (12) TMI 964

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The Revenue's sole substantive ground challenges the CIT(A) order accepting assessee's argument that the notice issued u/s.143(2) was not validly served for quashing the assessment order dated 31.7.2001. The assessee's cross objection is stated to be supportive of the CIT(A) order. 3. The assessee is assessed as an individual. The department conducted a search at his residential premises on 29.7.1999. This culminated in issuance of a section 158BC notice dated 15.10.1999. The assessee filed return on 25.11.1999 admitting undisclosed income of Rs. 30 lacs. The Assessing Officer thereafter completed assessment on 31.7.2001 making various additions aggregating to Rs. 40,50,950/- pertaining to the impugned block period from assessment....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cannot be dispensed with. The other important feature that requires to be noticed is that the Section 158 BC(b) specifically refers to some of the provisions of the Act which requires to be followed by the assessing officer while completing the block assessments under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. This legislation is by incorporation. This section even speaks of subsections which are to be followed by the AO. Had the intention of the legislature was to exclude the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Act, the legislature would have or could have indicated that also. A reading of the provision would clearly indicate, in our opinion, if the AO, if for any reason, repudiates the return filed by the assesses in response to notice under Section 158 BC(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts are the same, while deciding this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Guwahati High Court in IT Appeal No. 41 of 2004 dated 09- 02-2007, and also the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pawan Gupta & Ors (2009) 223 CTR 487. The Hon'ble Court also approved the decision of the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Bandana Gogol (2007) 289 ITR 28. 6.2 Further, in the cases of Jayprakash J Mangtani V/s ACIT (2009) 22 DTR 320, Jashmatbhai Nanubhai Vidiya V/s ACIT IT (SS) A NO. 41 & 85/Ahd/2003, and Arvindbhai C Jhaveri V/s ACIT Central Circle-4, Surat in IT(SS)A 39 and 94/AHD/2003, the Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad bench has annulled block assessment orders (in these case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., I also do not find it necessary to decide the case on merits." 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the case file. The Revenue's first argument is that the hon'ble apex court in Hotel Blue Moon's case stipulates only issuance of section 143(2) notice within a period of twelve months from the end of the month of filing of the return. It produces original record of section 158BC notice asking for assessee's return dated 14.10.1999. The assessee's return came on 25.11.1999. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a section 143(2) notice on 31.8.2000. The same was served on 26.7.2001. The Revenue accordingly argues that this issuance of notice happens to be within the abovestated statutory limitation of one year. It further c....