2014 (9) TMI 1008

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (now Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd.) it was noticed that the assessee is also one of the beneficiaries in the accommodation bills provided by the said company through its Directors Shri Mukesh M. Choksi and Jayesh K. Sampat and hence the income of the assessee also escaped assessment. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee, vide letter dated 30.06.2011, requested the AO to consider the original return of income filed as return filed in pursuance of notice under section 148. Though the AO issued a notice under section 142(1), the mandatory notice to be issued under section 143(2) was omitted to be issued and assessment was completed by computing the total income at Rs. 2,26,930/- under section 143(3) of the Act r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r it was submitted that issuance of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory; since it is a machinery provision, failure to issue such notice would invalidate the assessment proceedings. In this regard he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pratapbhai K. Soni 261 ITR 201 and an unreported decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (TA No. 75, 76, 77 & 78 of 2012). 5. The learned D.R. submitted that in the case of Areva T and D India Ltd. vs. ACIT 294 ITR 233 the Hon'ble Madras High Court considered identical issue and observed that if ....