TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....far as the validity of service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) is concerned. 2. The issue with regard to validity of issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is contained in Ground No.2 raised by the assessee which reads as follows :- "2. For that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is not served within the stipulated time prescribed in the Act resulting in the reassessment order is without jurisdiction, opposed to requirement of law and bad in law." 3. The Assessee is an individual. She derives income in the form of commission from acting as Agent for selling insurance policies. She filed return of income for AY 2005-06 on 1.8.2005 declaring total income of Rs. 3,35,970/-. The same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....particulars specified therein or on which the assessee may rely, in support of such claim; (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not under-stated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the tax in any manner, serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend his office or to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return: Provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished."; Amendment by the Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antive law, the said amended provisions will apply and therefore the service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was within the time as contemplated in law. This view of the AO was also endorsed by the CIT(A). 4. Before us the learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that law applicable will the law that prevailed during the relevant AY for which the assessment is sought to be made and in this regard placed reliance on the following two judicial pronouncements, viz., Krishna Mohan Banik Vs. ITO 232 ITR 339 (Gau.) and Ashok B.Bafna Vs. DCIT (2012) 18 ITR (Trib.) 43 (ITAT) (Mum). If the law applicable for service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is held to be the law as it prevailed when the Assessee filed her return of income, then the notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax return on March 31, 1992. Notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on october 27, 1992. Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and its proviso as it stood prior to its amendment on October 1, 1991, was to the following effect : "(2) Where a return has been made under Section 139, or in response to a notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 142, the Assessing Officer shall, if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid the tax in any manner,. . . serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend his office or to produce, or cause to be produced therein, any evidence on which t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... affect the finality of a tax assessment or to open up a tax liability which had become barred (see ITO v. S.K. Habibullah [1962] 44 ITR 809). The question therefore is as to whether the tax liability of the petitioner for the assessment year 1990-91 had become barred or final and could not be opened by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The proviso, as it stood prior to its amendment on October 1, 1991, quoted above would show that no notice under Section 143(2) could be served on the assessee after the expiry of the financial year in which the return was furnished or the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished, whichever was later. Before October 1, 1991, the pe....