TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 989
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in framing the impugned reassessment order without appreciating that the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act has been initiated on the basis of the alleged documents / information found during the course of search u/s. 132(1) of the Act which is impermissible as on the basis of such document / information, only proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act can be initiated and hence assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 of the Act is bad in law and liable to be annulled. 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the aforesaid additional grounds are legal in nature and as such the same may be admitted, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of NTPC vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383. 3. On the admission of additional grounds of appeal, Ld. Sr. DR objected the same and stated that assessee has not filed these additional grounds before the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore at this stage these additional grounds are not permissible, hence, the same may be rejected. 4. At the time of filing the appeal on 22.2.2019 the Registry has raised objection by stating that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt authority requiring the assessee to furnish its return of income for the year under consideration. In response to the notice dated 28.3.2016, assessee vide its letter dated 21.6.2016 stated that the return of income filed by the assessee u/s. 139(1) of the Act may be treated as return filed in response to the notice dated 28.3.2016 u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act appeared before the AO on 21.6.2016 and filed its letter dated 21.6.2016 stated that the return of income filed by the assessee u/s. 139(1) of the Act may be treated in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and on the same day AO issued a notice dated 21.6.2016 u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 requiring the assessee to attend his office on 05.7.2016 at 10.30 AM either in person or by a representative duly authorized in writing in this behalf or produce or cause there to be produced at the said time any documents, accounts and any other evidence on which it may rely in support of the return filed by it. Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 21.6.2016 was issued to the assessee on the same date i.e. when he appeared be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l for the assessee, as aforesaid and first adjudicate the same as under:- I am of the view that assessee company filed the original return of income for the assessment year in dispute declaring NIL income which was processed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the information received from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II), Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 28.3.2016. After recording the reasons and after getting the approval from the competent authority, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28.3.2016 requiring the assessee to file the return of income. As per the assessment order Page no. 17 & para no. 17, it is noted that the AO after examination of the documents i.e. return of income and information provided by the Investigation Wing of the Department, New Delhi and duly satisfying himself, issued notice dated 28.3.2016 u/s. 148 of the Act with the prior approval of the Pr. CIT-I, New Delhi was issued requiring the assessee to furnish its return of income for the year under consideration. As per para 18 at page 17 of the assessment order, in response to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 28.02.2014 under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the I.T. Act. The assessee challenged the addition before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal of assessee has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The assessee filed an application dated 19th September, 2017 for admission of following additional grounds of appeal : "1.That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) and that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with the mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3), is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) and that too without issuing/serving the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) as per law." 4. The Learned Counse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame and filed return. However, the date of the notice was mistakenly mentioned as 23rdMarch, 2000. Assuming the aforesaid to be true, the notice was served on the Authorized Representative simultaneously on his filing the return which clearly indicates that the notice was ready even prior to the filing of the return. The provisions of s. 143(2) make it dear that the notice can only be served after the AO has examined the return filed by the assessee. Whereas it is dear that when the assessee came to file the return, the notice under s. 143(2) was served upon the Authorized Representative by hand. Thus, it would amount to gross violation of the scheme of s. 143(2)." 5.1. And the conclusion is as under : "Assessment made in pursuance of a notice under section 143(2) issued on 23rd March, 2000 when the return was filed on 27th March, 2000 is invalid." 6. He has submitted that the same order have been followed by ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of Shri Harsh Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(3), New Delhi in ITA.No.1262 and 1263/Del./2017 dated 17.10.2017 in which the Tribunal held as under : 10. "It was further argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee Dr. Rakesh Gupta that n....