TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uashed. 2. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts without appreciating that the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2)(i) of the Income tax Act was not served on the appellant validly and also not upto 31.5.2003, hence the entire assessment proceedings are void ab initio. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's action of treating the amount of Rs. 7,76,051/- received by the appellant as part of salary and confirming the addition ignoring that the same to be capital receipt as claimed by the appellant. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding AO's act of holding the view that the amount received as compensation for loss of employment in pursuance of a court order tantamount to part of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n income of Rs. 3,45,710/- which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 27.1.2003. Thereafter, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the notice u/s. 143(2)(i) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.5.2003 which was claimed to have been served on the same date. The Assessing officer framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 11,67,301/- by making the addition of Rs. 7,76,051/- received by the assessee @ 50% of the wages in pursuance of the order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, from the date of relinquishment till the date of re-appointment which was claimed to be a capital receipt as there was no employment during that period, another addition of Rs. 45,540/- was made by the Assessing officer on account of professional receip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying particulars of such claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief and require him, on a date to be specified therein to produce, or case to be produced, any evidence or particulars specified therein or on which the assessee may rely, in support of such claim: [Provided that no notice under this clause shall he served on the assessee on or after the 1st day of June, 2003:]" The proviso to above section has curtailed the limitation to serve the notice u/s. 143(2)(i) to 31.5.2003. However, the notice issued on 30.5.2003 was sent at the residence of the assessee which was not received by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....143(2) cannot be a mere procedural irregularity and the same is not curable -Further, s. 158BC(b) specifically refers to some of the provisions of the Act which are required to be followed by the AO while completing the block assessments under Chapter XIVB-If the intention of the legislature was to exclude the provisions of Chapter XIV] it would have indicated that-Therefore, if the AO, for any reason, repudiates the return filed by the assessee in response to a notice under s. 158BC(a), he must necessarily issue notice under s. 143(2) within the time prescribed in the proviso to s. 143(2)-When s. 158BC(b) specifically refers to applicability of s. 143(2), its proviso cannot be excluded- There is no reason to restrict the scope and meaning ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ressed that the notice was received by his maid and not by him. However, the appellant has not substantiated this submission, therefore the submission of the appellant is not acceptable. 4. The appellant has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC). However, in the case of Hotel Blue Moon, notice u/s. 143(2) was not issued at all therefore the decision in this case is not applicable to the case under consideration. 5. The appellant has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Pune in case of Anil Kisanlal Marda (ITA No. 1763/PUN/2013). However, in this case, the notice issued u/s. 143(2) was returned by the postal authorities and it was not thus served. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the limitation period for serving notice u/s. 143(2) (i) of the Act was up to 31.5.2003 and the Assessing officer issued the notice on 30.5.2003. It was claimed by the Assessing officer that the said notice was served on the same date i.e. 30.5.2003. On the contrary, the claim of the assessee is that the said notice was never served upon the assessee and it was received by his maid who was not authorized to receive the same on Ist June, 2003. In the present case, it is noticed that the assessee also moved an application under R.T.I. Act to the Assessing officer i.e. I.T.O., Ward 1(3) of the....