TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not appreciating that the provisions of sec.292B of the Income Tax Act is applicable in the instant case as the notice issued was undoubtedly to assess/reassess the income of the assessee u/s.l53C of the Income Tax Act ? Ground no. 3 : Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in facts and in law in not considering the provisions of Section 292B which states "No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act."? Ground no. 4 : Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in facts and in law in not appreciating that the assessee had complied with the notices issued and has not raised the validity of the notice during scrutiny proceedings? Ground no. 5 : Whether the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of the appellant and therefore, issue of notice of u/s 153A and assessment thereof is not in order. In this regard, a report was called for from the A.O. who in his reply dated 11.6.2013 has stated that :- "From verification of the A.O. folder and Panchanama it is found that there is no separate warrant issued as per section 132 of the I T Act in the name of Sri K M Nagaraj. The warrant dated 25.08.2009 issued in the name of M/s Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt Ltd., to search the premises of Sri K M Nagaraj. Hence the provision of section 153A is not applicable in the case of Sri K M Nagaraj. Copy of the warrant issued and Panchanama is enclosed herewith." 9. In view of the above, as the appellant's case was not covered u/s 132, proceedings u/s 153A do not lie. This fact and finding would apply also to assessment years 2005-06 and 2007-08, as assessments have been completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) in consequence of the same search u/s 132 dated 26.08.2009 for A.Ys 2005-06 and 2007-08 also. Therefore, this issue raised by the appellant carries weight that proceedings u/s 153A are unwarranted in the case of the appellant. The assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... & Property Development (P) Ltd. It is clear that AO can assume jurisdiction only u/s 153C as no search warrant was issued in the name of the respondent-assessee. But the AO had mentioned section 153A in the notice issued calling upon the respondentassessee to file return of income as well as in the orders of assessment. Whether this fact alone shall invalidate the assessment orders? This requires to be adjudicated in the light of the provisions of section 292B of the Act which provides that return of income or notice or summons shall not be invalidated on certain grounds. The provisions of section 292B are extracted below: "Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee had responded to the notice issued u/s 153A by filing return of income, participated in the proceedings till the matter resulted in framing of the assessment order. During the course of assessment proceedings, the respondent-assessee was given due opportunity of meeting the case made against him and in the result there was no prejudice caused to the respondentassessee. Furthermore, it is not the case of the respondentassessee that his case even does not fall within the scope and ambit of the provisions of section 153C of the Act. The only mistake on the part of the AO is in mentioning section 153A instead of 153C. In the facts of the preset case, the provisions of section 292B clearly come into play. Under the provisions of section 292B, certain acts are not to be treated as invalid by reason of mistake or defect or omission either in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings. In other words, notice cannot be invalidated by reason of any mistake such as one occurred in the present case i.e. mentioning section 153A instead of 153C. If this mistake is not allowed to be cured, the very purpose and object of enacting the provisions of section 292B is d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipated in the proceedings, the very purpose/objective of the provisions contained in Section 292B of the Act would stand frustrated/defeated. The intent of the Legislature is clear from the language employed in this provision which states that a defective notice, such as the one in the present case, cannot be declared invalid by reason of any mistake, defect or omission, if the notice in 'substance' and in 'effect' is in conformity with or according to the intent of purpose of this Act. The intent or purpose of issuing the notice is to call upon the assessee to file return, if the Assessing Officer finds that income has escaped the assessment. This being the intent and purpose of the provisions contained in Section 148 of the Act, in our opinion, it stands satisfied if the notice is responded within reasonable time, which in the present case was 30 days, irrespective of the fact whether the period was specified or not in the notice for filing return of income. In the present case, if the assessee had not responded to this notice at all and had raised such ground of challenge, perhaps, he would not succeed (sic). But having responded and participated in the proceedin....