AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of delay of 421 days in re-filing the appeal] 1. These are the applications filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeals. 2. According to the appellant/revenue, the period of delay involved is 421 days. 3. Although the delay in re-filing is substantial, in view of the fact that we are inclined to hear the matter on merits, albeit, at admission stage, the delay is condoned. 4. The applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 509/2023 ITA 510/2023 5. These appeals concern Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08 [ITA 509/2023] and 2008-09 [ITA 510/2023]. The appeals assail a common order dated 22.03.2021. 6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that since the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act. The CIT(A), thus, did not deal with the matter on merits, i.e., concerning the grounds on which the additions made to the respondent/assessee's income were assailed. 13. We may note that in the original assessment order, besides the two additions referred to hereinabove, the AO had also disallowed expenses amounting to Rs. 1,33,267/-, and added to the respondent/assessee's income unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 6,58,000/-. 14. In the second round, the AO made almost the same additions, i.e., unexplained expenditure of Rs. 1,33,267/- was added. 15. Likewise, an addition was made on account of unexplained share application money. The amount deposited was Rs. 1,02,70,000/-. 15.1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the material on record and dismissed the appeal of the appellant/revenue. 18. We find upon perusal of the record that, apart from anything else, the appellant/revenue had not raised any ground before the Tribunal which assailed the finding returned by the CIT( A ) that the sanctioning authority had not applied its mind independently to the approval granted by it for triggering the reassessment proceeding. The grounds that the appellant/revenue took before the Tribunal were confined to whether the respondent/assessee had communicated to the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as a return in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 19. It is in this context that the appellant/revenue had taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sanction accorded by the specified authority under Section 151 of the Act. 22. Be that as it may, qua the aspect concerning the issue as to whether or not the respondent/assessee had communicated to the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as a return in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the CIT(A) recorded the following findings of fact which were again, sustained by the Tribunal. For the sake of easy reference, the relevant part of the CIT(A)'s order dated 29.02.2016 is extracted hereafter: "8.9 Appellant has also raised the issue that no notice u /s 143(2) was served on the appellant after filing the return in response to notice issued by the AO u/s 148. In order to verify the conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 held that the provisions of section 142 and subsections (2) and (3) of section 143 would have mandatory application in a case where the Assessing Officer in repudiation of return filed in response to a notice issued under section 158BC(a) proceeds to make an inquiry. Similarly when a return is filed u/s 147, assessment cannot be completed u/s 143(1) of the Act, and it is mandatory to complete the assessment u/s 143(3). Therefore, when assessment is completed u/s 143(3) or u/s 144 of the Act, issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory and in case no such statutory notice is issued, the AO cannot assume jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 143(3). Hon'ble ITAT, New Delhi in the case of Mohinder Kuma....