TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 873
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in deleting direction of DRP solely on the ground that the notice u/s 143(2) was not served within limitation. ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in deciding the appeal on technical issue and not going on the merits of the case. iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in law in quashing the draft assessment order in pursuance to the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act holding the same as barred by the limitation. 3. The facts of the case are that the first notice for the assessment year 2010-11 was issued u/s 143(2) on 29.9.2011 and the same was se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imited as well as in a wider sense. We must, therefore, give the expression "issued" in s. 4 of the Amending Act that meaning which carries out the intention of the Legislature in preference to that which defeats it. By doing so we will not be departing from the accepted meaning of the expression, but only giving it one of its meanings accepted, which fits into the context or setting in which it appears. 20. With this background let us give a closer look to the provisions of s. 4 of the Amending Act. The object of the section is to save the validity of a notice issued beyond the prescribed time. Though the time within which such notice should have been issued under s. 34(1)of the Act, as it stood before its amendment by s. 18 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e served on the Respondent-Assessee latest by 30th Oct., 2006. In the present case, notice was issued on 16th Oct., 2006 which was dispatched on 18th Oct., 2006 by registered post. The materials on record indicate that on two occasions the notice sent by registered post could not be served on the Respondent- Assessee as he was not available and that it was served on the Authorized Representative of the Respondent-Assessee on 19th Oct., 2006. The question, therefore, that arises in the writ petition was whether in such circumstances the requirement Under Section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was met by the Revenue. The High Court answered the question in the negative taking the view that what is required to be satisfied by the Revenue is serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court in Gyan Prakash Gupta (supra). Noticeable it is that even in Gyan Prakash Gupta, this Court did not hold that omission to serve within time was merely a procedural irregularity. In the said decision, this Court observed that assessment so made without notice under Section 143(2) could only be set aside and not annulled. Be that as it may, now the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra) puts it beyond a pale of doubt that the requirement of issuance of notice within prescribed time under Section 143(2) of the Act for the purpose of assessment in case of the AO repudiating the return filed by the assessee in response to the notice under Section 158BC is a mandatory requirement and omission....