2021 (10) TMI 953

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in confirming the action of the AO in framing the reassessment u/s. 143(2) was issued after the period of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return u/s. 148 was filed i.e. 30.03.2019 which was barred by limitation. 3. According to Ld. A.R the legal issue raised by the assessee is regarding non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) within six months from the end of the financial year in which the return u/s. 148 was filed i.e. 30.03.2019 which was barred by limitation. In order to buttress this legal issue the Ld. A.R. drew our attention to the fact that the assessee was in receipt of the notice u/s. 148 dated 29.03.2019 wherein the AO has proposed his desi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. We note that similar legal issue cropped up before this Tribunal in the case of Asiatic Oxygen (supra) and thus we note that this legal issue is no longer res integra. We note that this Tribunal have already held on the similar facts on the legal issue as under: "4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the dates given above in respect to notice issued u/s. 148 and the letter written by the assessee to treat the original return of income as return of income pursuant to the notice u/s. 147/148 of the Act etc., which is essential for adjudicating the issue before us is not in dispute. We note that the notice u/s. 148/147 of the Act dated 21.01.2013 pursuant to which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the 143(2) notice has been issued on 12.12.2013 and, therefore, the action of the AO is barred by the limitation prescribed by the 1st proviso to sec. 143(2) of the Act and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (321 ITR 362) has held that issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory for scrutiny assessment even in cases of assessments after search u/s. 132 of the Act. Since issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory before scrutiny assessment even section 292BB of the Act cannot come to the rescue of the AO. And the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. C. Palaniapan (284 ITR 257(Mad)] held that issuance of notice u/s. 143(2)is mandatory in reassessment cases also. Further, we do not find any merit in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sponded to it by asking the AO vide letter dated 30.03.2019 to treat the return of income filed original by it dated 27.09.2012 (refer page 1 of PB). This fact also has been accepted by the AO in the same para at page 2 of his re-assessment order. So as per the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, no notice could have been served upon the assessee after six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is filed. Here in this case, the assessee vide letter dated 30.03.2019 has intimated to the AO pursuant to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act to treat the original return filed by it as return pursuant to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the AO ought to have issued mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) on or before 30th Sep....