TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 2053
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) holding that the assessment is valid despite the fact that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued at all. For this assessee has raised the following ground No.2: - "2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 is valid in spite of the fact that no notice under section 143(2) was issued and served on assessee even though assessee requested vide letter dated 18.08.2014 to treat return filed originally for AY 2020-11 as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the IT Act 1961." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment order by observing as under: - 6.2 So far as second ground of appeal raised by the appellant is concerned, the appellant has contended that assessment order is bad in law because no notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act was issued by the AO. If we examine the facts of the case, we find that no return of income was filed by the appellant within the time allowed under the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. The return of income filed on 18/07/2014 is non est in the eyes of law because the same was required to be filed on or before 15/04/2014. Since no valid return of income was filed by the appellant in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, question of issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the IT Act by the AO does not arise. Reliance in this r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly rejected the belated return filed by the appellant, there is nothing on record to suggest that the AU has acted on the same. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant that the AO has acceded to appellant's request to treat the return tiled earlier as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. So far as contention of the appellant that the AU has not passed order uis 144 of the IT Act is concerned, I'm of the opinion that the AO has wrongly mentioned the order as passed uls 143(3) rws 147 but this mistake of the AU is condonable under section 292B of the IT Act. Moreover, in the case of ACIT vs MEGHRAJ GOLECFIA 60 lTD 448 (Mum) it has been held by the honourable tribunal that "Merely w....