2017 (3) TMI 676

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... identical, except the figures involved, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of brevity. 2. The grounds raised in ITA No. 4099/Del/.2015 (AY 1999-2000) are reproduced hereunder:- 1. The Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) erred in passing the ex-parte order despite the fact that appellant's representative had meticulously repetitively appeared before various CIT(A)'s from 2005 onwards and placed voluminous evidences on record, which have all been ignored by CIT(A) altogether. 3. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by holding that the impu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... its return of income for the AY 1999-2000 on 22.2.2001 declaring total loss of Rs. 18,97,061/- after claiming exemption u/s.10(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs. 20,26,502 in respect of agricultural income. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the I.T. Act, on 12.9.2000. The case was subsequently reopened. Order u/s. 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act was passed and receipts of Rs. 3,30,62,800/- claimed to be agricultural in nature were added u/s. 68 of the Act. The income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 14,09,220/- vide his order date 18.3.2005. 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 18.3.2005, assessee filed the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who impugned order dated 31.3.2015 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....TAT decisions:- ACIT & Anr. vs. Hotel Blue 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.----....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance 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 decision of the Apex Court, on the facts available, we are of the view that in completing the assessment under Section 148 of the Act, compliance of the procedure laid down under Sections 142 and 143 (2) is mandatory. On the admitted fact that beyond notice under Section 142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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' Special Bench." CIT & Anr. Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal (Allahabad High Court) reported in 346 ITR 67 We also may mention here that the question of section 292BB of the Act pressed into service by the Revenue herein came up for consideration before this court in Income Tax Appeal No.286 of 20 11, decided on November 23, 2011 (ClT v. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal since reported in [2012l 345 ITR 29 (All)) and this court ....