2017 (9) TMI 1928

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is deleted from the array of parties. 4. The Petitioner challenges an interim order dated 8th August, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in Petitioner's appeal being ITA No.1443/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2008 - 2009. By the said impugned order, the ITAT has declined to permit the Petitioner to raise additional ground '22' which reads as under: "22. That the assessment order passed on 25.06.2012 is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction & barred by time limitation as the reference & order under section 142(2A) of the Act is illegal and bad in law. " 5. According to the ITAT in view of the decision in Sahara India (Firm) v CIT (2008) 169 Taxmann 328 (SC), it was impermissible to permit the ITAT to e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion l(iii) of Section 153 of the Act. In our view, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue as to whether an order of assessment 143(3), is passed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act or not. For coming to such a conclusion, in our view the Tribunal can examine whether the order passed u/s 142(2A) or u/s 142(2C) is in accordance with law or not. The order passed u/s 142(2A) or u/s 142(2C) cannot be appealed separately. But when an assessment order is challenged, then the different aspects which are integral to the process and ultimate completion of amount can be challenged in Appeal. For example a notice u/s 148 or reasons recorded by the A.0 prior to re-opening of assessment cannot be challenged separately.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ee and in the absence of any express provision in Section 142 (2A) barring the giving of reasonable opportunity to an assessee, the requirement of observance of principles of natural justice is to be read into the said provision. Accordingly, we reiterate the view expressed in Rajesh Kumar's case (supra). ...... 29. There is no denying the fact that the law on the subject was in a flux in the sense that till the judgment in Rajesh Kumar (supra) was rendered, there was divergence of opinion amongst various High Courts. Additionally, even after the said judgment, another two-Judge Bench of this Court had expressed reservation about its correctness. Having regard to all these peculiar circumstances and the fact that on 14th December, 200....