TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 804
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....treated nonest and there was no need to issue u/s 143(2)" is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and untenable. 2.2 That the judgment relied upon by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the case of CIT v Areva T&D India Ltd. v. ACIT reported 294 ITR 233 (Mad) wherein it has been held if appellant has been participating in assessment proceedings failure to issue 143(2) does not make re-assessment proceedings void is wholly inapplicable on the fact of the appellant and hence untenable. 3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining an addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- to cover all possible leakages in the account of the assessee on estimated basis. 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in recording various adverse inferences which are contrary to the facts on record, material placed on record and, are otherwise unsustainable in law and therefore, addition so sustained is absolutely unwarranted. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the levy of interest of Rs. 2,85,335/- uls 234A of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO, the assessment so made u/s. 147/144 of the I.T. Act, is otherwise bad in law and wholly unsustainable. He further stated that the finding that "return filed in response to 148/142(1) was beyond prescribed time limit in the notice thus was treated nonest and there was no need to issue u/s 143(2)" is factually incorrect, legally misconceived and untenable. It was further stated that the judgment relied upon by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the case of CIT v Areva T&D India Ltd. v. ACIT reported 294 ITR 233 (Mad) wherein it has been held if appellant has been participating in assessment proceedings failure to issue 143(2) does not make re-assessment proceedings void is wholly inapplicable on the fact of the appellant and hence untenable. Ld. Counsel of the assessee filed the synopsis and stated that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the various decisions of the various Hon'ble High Courts as well as Tribunal. In this behalf, he filed the a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 74 containing the copies of various judgments and decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunal especially the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Moon: [(2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC)] HELD: "It is mandatory for the AO to issue notice u/s 143 (2). The issuance and service of notice u/s 143 (2) is mandatory and not procedural. If the notice is not served within the prescribed period, the assessment order is invalid Reassessment-----Notice----- Assessee intimating original return be treated as fresh return--- Reassessment proceedings completed despite assessee filing affidavit denying serviced of notice under section 143(2)---- Assessing Officer not representing before Commissioner (Appeals) that notice had been issued---- Reassessment order invalid due to want of notice under section 143(2)--- Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 143, 147, 148(1), prov.----ITO v. R.K. GUPTA [308 ITR 49 (Delhi)Tribu.," CIT vs. M/s Panorama Builders Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Appeal no. 435 of 2011 of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court Issue Involved: "Whether non-issuance of the notice u/s 143(2) within the prescribed time, made the whole block assessment order null and void and bad in law, despite the assessee not having raised any objection before the passing of the assessment order and despite the provisions of section 292BB of the Act? " Held: "In this case, Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148." JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. - 2008-09 "Reassessment order passed under section 143(3)/148 without issue of a valid notice under section 143(2) was illegal." RAJ KUMAR CHA WLA AND ORS. VS. ITO - (2005) 94 ITD 1 (Del)(SB) Limitation for re-assessment- Service of notice u/s143(2) in time - A.Y.1995-96. "It was presumed by legal fiction that a return filed uls 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 would be treated as a return filed u/s 139 of the Act. The assessee had filed its return in response to a notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The service of notice u/s143(2) of the Act within 12 months of filing the return u/s 148 of the Act was mandatory, but the notice had been served beyond 12 months. Therefore, as the re-assessment was barred by limitation, no reassessment could be made u/s 143(3) r/w S.147 of the Act.- ITAT Delhi 'F' Speci....