TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as "PCIT (Central), Bhopal") setting aside the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) dated 30.12.2019, is without jurisdiction, illegal, bad-in-law and void ab initio on account of several reasons, more particularly, owing to the reason that the jurisdiction u/s 263 has been assumed in respect of non-Est proceedings which is vitiated by non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal has erred in holding that the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Learned A.O. u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and thereby setting aside the same. 3. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that the order passed by the Learned A.O. was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Interest of the Revenue and hence the revision of the same by the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is erroneou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and in the circumstances of the case and in law, for these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld. PCIT (Central), Bhopal may kindly be quashed, and the appeal may kindly be allowed. 11. The appellant craves leaves to add or amend/ alter/ withdraw any or all above grounds of appeal. All the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who had filed its return of income u/s 139 on 30/03/2013. The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing a notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2019. In response to the notice u/s 148 of assessee has filed his return of income on 01.06.2019 i.e., after 30 days from the date of notice u/s 148, declaring total income of Rs. 8,71,310/- shown in the return of income, which as it was accepted by the Ld AO. 4. The case of the assessee was subsequently perused by the Ld. PCIT (Central), Bhopal. On examination of assessment records Ld. PCIT has considered it appropriate to show cause the assessee u/s 263(1) of the I.T. Act, accordingly, a notice was issued on 14.01.2022, the contents of the notice issued u/s 163 are extract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ascertainable from the promissory notes when the same was compared with account statements. The AO has not at all analysed and made due verification/enquiry of these documents and simply accepted your self-cited recitals in the form of your submission. As regards, the affidavit submitted by your accountant, the same was also accepted by the AO without realising that affidavit is only a self-citing recital carrying no evidentiary value Unless it is cross examined as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra & Other civil appeal no. 7728 of 2012 (reported in AIR 2013 SC/58/(2013)/SCC/465. In view of the above discussion, it becomes prima facie clear that the AO has passed the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 without making any enquiry or verification which he should have been made during the assessment proceedings making the assessment order prima facie erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the Interest of revenue within meaning of explanation 2(a) of section 263(1) of IT Act. Accordingly, you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard as per section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to present ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellant : Shri Anil Nachrani Respondent : The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ITA No. : 47/RPR/2022 A.Y. : 2012-13 Fixed on : 21.09.23 (1) The return of income u/s 139 was filed on 30.03.2013, copy of ROI along with Computation of Total Income is placed on Page No 1 to 4 of the Paper Book. (2) The Learned A.O issued notice u/s 148 on 30.03.2019, copy of notice u/s 148 is placed on Page No 5 of the Paper Book. The assessee duly filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 electronically on 01.06.2019, copy of ITR acknowledgement along with Computation of Total Income filed in response to the notice u/s 148 is placed on Page No 6 to 9 of the Paper Book. The Learned A.O did not issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as mandated u/s 143. (3) The Learned A.O passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 vide order dated 30.12.2019, copy of the assessment order passed by the Learned A.O is placed on Page No 10 to 15 of the Paper Book. (4) Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 only which is self-evident from the following:- Sl. No. Particulars Foll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....U.S. Roofs Ltd. (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 741 Mumbai Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench 8-13 of LPB-3 6. PCIT vs. National Informatics Centre Services Inc. (2018) 400 ITR 387 (Del) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 20-24 of LPB-3 7 ACIT vs. SG Portfolio P Ltd. (2021) 211 TTJ (Del) 970 Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi 'G' Bench 14- 19 of LPB-3 6.1 (b) The Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal issued notice u/s 263, copy of the notice dated 14.01.2022 is placed on Page No 16 to 18 of the Paper Book. The Learned PCIT could not have assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 in respect of non-Est proceedings which was vitiated by the vice of non- issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2). The assessee places reliance on following judicial pronouncements wherein it has been held that if the assessment order passed by the Learned A.O is bad-in-law and non-Est then the Learned PCIT cannot assume jurisdiction over such assessment order which does not exist in the eyes of law. S. N0. TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Following age No. of the CLC 1. PCIT vs. Badal Prakash Jindal, HUF, Bargarh I.T.A. Nos. 8, 7, 9 & 10 of 2023 dated 02.03223 The Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CITATION AUTHORITY Following Page No. of the CLC 1. Smt. Gayatri Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 461/JP/2018 Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench 87 - 105 of LPB-I 2. PCIT-III vs. Kamia Devi Sharma ITA No. 197/2018 Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan 106 - 118 of LPB-I 6.1 (e) Mere delay in e-verification does not make the return invalid, assessee places reliance on following judicial pronouncement: - Sl. No. TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Following Page No. of the CLC 1. PCIT & Anr. vs. Electronics & Controls Power Systems Ltd. (2022) 326 CTR (Kar) 233 The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 25 -29 of LPB-3 6.1(f) Upon removal of defect, the date of filing of Return of Income is date of uploading of data electronically, assessee places reliance on following judicial pronouncements: - Sl. No TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Following Page No. of the CLC 1. Atul Projects India (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (2019) 309 CTR (Bom) 392 The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay 30 - 32 of LPB-3 2. Travel Designer India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 315 CTR (Guj) 800 The Hon'ble High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icial pronouncements: - S. No. Title Citation Authority Following Page No. of LPB - 2 1. M/S. Sun Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT-I, Bilaspur (CG). ITA No 112/RPR/2018 Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur Bench 1-26 2. Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited vs. ITO Ward 9(2), Kolkata ITA No. 1270/ KOL/2013 Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata Bench 27 - 60 3. M/s. B.K. Rolling Mills Private Limited Vs. Pr. CIT- I, Raipur (CG) . ITA No.40/ RPR/2018 Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur Bench 61 - 69 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 The Hon'ble Supreme Court 70-75 5. CIT vs. J.L. Morrison India Limited (2014) 366 ITR 593 Cal The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta 76 - 103 6. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Max India Ltd. 2007 213 The Hon'ble 104 - 105 7. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 0292 The Hon'ble High Court of Bomba 106 - 112 8. Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2021) 189 ITV) 139 (1<01) The Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata 113 - 130 Third Argument: (8) The assessment order passed u/s 147 r.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod of 30 days, however, in case the same is filed by the assessee beyond the stipulated time period, then merely for the reason that some delay is involved in filing of the said 'return of income' would not render the same as invalid and non-Est. A 'return of income' filed by an assessee beyond the specified time period contemplated in the notice issued under s. 148, would though lead to characterizing the same as a 'return of income' filed beyond the stipulated time period, but however, the same would not cease to be a 'return of income' filed pursuant to the notice issued under s. 148, though involving some delay. This view is supported from the very fact that as per s. 234A (3), where the 'return of income' in compliance to a notice under s. 148 is filed beyond the stipulated time period, then Interest under the said statutory provision is imposed on the assessee date of furnishing of the same. of s. 234A (3) clearly contemplates that a 'return of income' filed after the expiry of the stipulated time period shall still continue to be a 'return of income' filed by the assessee pursuant to the notice under s. 148. This view als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Further, it was observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the Assessing Officer had, thereafter, issued another notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 04.10.2016 wherein he had directed the assessee to attend his office personally or through duly authorized representative on 14.10.2016 at 3.30pm a/w. required information /documentary evidence, bank account etc. Observing, that as all the ingredients of the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act could safely be traced/gathered from the aforesaid notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, dated 14.10.2016, the CIT(Appeals) was of the view that said notice could be viewed as a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, on the basis of his aforesaid observations the CIT(Appeals) upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3)/148 of the Act, dated 21.11.2016. For the sake of clarity and in order to dispel any doubt the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are reproduced as under: "2.3. First, taking the addition ground taken by the appellant challenging the validity of order passed u/s.143(3)/148 as not return of income was filed by him either u/s.139 or u/s.147. As per the assessee in case of no return, the assessment cannot be made u/s.143(3)/147. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... him that in absence of any return of income having been filed by him either u/s.139 or in response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, no assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act could have been validly framed in his hands, was rebutted by the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the notice(s) u/s.142(1) of the Act, Dated 16.09.2016 and 04.10.2016 could be viewed as a notice u/s. view, the aforesaid observation of the CIT (Appeal) is not only misconceived in the context of the issue, which was raised by the assessee before him, but in fact is absolutely devoid and bereft of any force of law. As observed by us herein above, it was claimed by the assessee that now when he had not filed any return of income with the Assessing Officer then how could an assessment be framed u/s.143(3) of the Act in his case. However, the CIT(Appeals) losing sight of the issue raised by the assessee before him, had upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3)/148 of the Act dated 21.11.2016 on the ground that notice u/s.142(1) of the Act, (supra) could safely be viewed/construed as a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. In our considered view, the aforesaid observation of the CIT(Appeals) was absolutely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... PCIT-08 vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 519/2015 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi JCIT vs. U.S. Roofs Ltd. (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 741 Mumbai Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench PCIT vs. National Informatics Centre Services Inc. (2018) 400 ITR 387 (Del) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ACIT vs. SG Portfolio P Ltd. (2021) 211 TTJ (Del) 970 Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi 'G' Bench 12. Ld. AR further submitted that the action of Ld PCIT was beyond his jurisdiction in invoking the revisionary provisions of section 263 on the basis of a non-Est assessment on account of non-issuance of compulsory notice u/s 143(2). Such a peculiar situation on issue under deliberation has been discussed and decided in the following judgments, upon which the Ld. AR of the assessee has placed reliance: 1. PCIT vs. Badal Prakash Jindal, HUF, Bargarh I.T.A. Nos. 8, 7, 9 & 10 of 2023 dated 02.03223 The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack 2. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. vs. PCIT-I, Raipur ITA No. 55/ RPR/2021 dated 31.10.2022 The Hon'ble ITAT, Raipur Bench 3. Minimax Commerce (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Raipur (2021) 133 taxmann.c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der was non-Est. Indulgence of the tribunal in the said case was sought by the assessee for adjudicating the following issues (as culled out from the order): "1. Whether the assessee can challenge the validity of an assessment order during the appellate proceedings pertaining to examination of validity of order passed u/s 263? 2. Whether the impugned assessment order passed u/ s 143(3) dated 24- 10-2013 was valid in the eyes of law or a nullity as has been claimed by the assessee? 3. If the impugned assessment order passed u/ s 143(3) was illegal or nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the CIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/ s 263 to revise the non-Est assessment order?" (A). Answering the first issue, i.e., whether the assessee remains within his right to challenge the validity of an assessment order during the appellate proceedings pertaining to examination of validity of order passed u/ s 263 of the Act, the tribunal had on the basis of its exhaustive deliberations and drawing support from a host of judicial pronouncements answered the said issue in the affirmative. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as contained in Income Tax Act? It has been vehemently argued before us that the subsequent proceedings (i.e. collateral proceedings) derive strength only from the order passed in the original proceedings (i.e. primary proceedings). Thus, if order passed in the original proceedings is itself illegal, then that cannot give rise to valid revision proceedings. Therefore, as per law, the validity of the order passed in the primary (original) proceedings should be allowed to be examined even at the subsequent stages, only for the limited purpose of examining whether the collateral (subsequent) proceedings have been initiated on a valid legal platform or not and for examining the validity of assumption of jurisdiction to initiate the collateral proceedings. If it is not so allowed, then, it may so happen that though order passed in the original proceedings was illegal and thus order passed in the subsequent proceedings in turn would also be illegal, but in absence of a remedy to Contest the same, it may give rise to an 'enforceable' tax liability without authority of law. Therefore, the Courts have taken this view that jurisdictional aspects of the order passed in the primary pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the impugned decree of the Civil Court can be assailed by the appellant in execution. It is already held that it is the Controller under the Act that has exclusive jurisdiction to order ejectment of a tenant from a building in the urban area leased out by the landlord. Thereby the Civil Court inherently lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass a decree of ejectment. Therefore, though the decree was passed, and the jurisdiction of the Court was gone into in issue Nos. 4 and 5 at the ex-parte trial, the decree there-under is a nullity, and does not bind the appellant. Therefore, it does not operate as a res judicata. The Courts below have committed grave error of law in holding that the decree in the suit operated as res judicata and the appellant cannot raise the same point once again at the execution." 8.4. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court by following aforesaid judgments recently in the case of Indian Bank vs Manilal Govind ji khona reported in 2015 (3) SCC 712. Further, similar view was emphasized by Hon'ble Bombay High Court (GOA Bench) in the case of Mavany Brothers vs CIT (Tax Appeal No 8 of 2007) in its order dt 17th April 2()15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cifically raised the plea that the Question of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment shaving been expressly given up by the assessee in the appeal against the reassessment order in the first round, the assessee was debarred from raising that point again before the AAC and the AAC was equally wrong in permitting the assessee to raise that point which had become final in the first round and in adjudicating upon the same. The plea of the Revenue impressed the Tribunal which took the view that after its earlier order in the first round of proceedings the matter attained finality with regard to the point of jurisdiction which was given up before the AAC and not agitated further and that in the remand proceedings what was open before the Assessing Officer was only the question whether the addition was justified on merits and the point regarding the jurisdictional aspect was not open before the Assessing Officer. According to the Tribunal, the assessee having raised the point in the first round and having given it up could not revive it in the second round of proceedings where the issue was limited to the merits of the additions. In this view, the Tribunal accepted the Revenues plea. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; and following aforesaid judgments of the supreme court, it was held that if an assessee seeks to challenge the reassessment proceedings as being without jurisdiction, when action for rectification is sought to be taken on the assumption of the validity of the reassessment order, then the assessee has to step in and protect its Interests and the liberty to Question even the validity of the reassessment proceedings ought to be given to it.... ..." (emphasis supplied). 8.8 Similar view was taken in another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhiraj Suri vs ACIT 98 ITD 87 (Del). In the said case, appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal against the levy of penalty. In the appeal challenging the penalty order, the assessee challenged the validity of block assessment order which had determined the tax liability of the assessee on the basis of which penalty was levied subsequently. The revenue objected with respect to the ground of the assessee raising jurisdictional issues of assessment proceedings in the appeal against the penalty order. After analyzing the legal position, as clarified by Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the case of P.V. Doshi, supra and Hon&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is no quarrel with the proposition advanced by Id. DR that the proceedings u/ s 263 are for the benefit of revenue and not for assessee. 18. However, u/ s 263 the Id. Commissioner cannot revise a non-Est order in the eye of law. Since the assessment order was passed in pursuance to the notice U/S 143(2), which was beyond time, therefore, the assessment order passed in pursuance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non-Est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/ s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non-Est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the right of assessee which has accrued in favour of assessee on account of its income being determined. If Id. Commissioner revises such an assessment order, then it would imply extendin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing to Ld. CIT it was a non-Est return, if assessment is framed on non-Est return, the assessment itself would be mill and void and could not be subject matter of jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Westlife Development Ltd. (supra) in which original assessment order was held to be null and void in the eye of Law as same was passed upon non-existing entity. Therefore, it was held that Ld. CIT could not have assumed jurisdiction under the Law to make revision of a non-Est order. Therefore, impugned order passed under section 263 by the CIT was also held invalid in the eye of Law and therefore, the same was quashed. The A.O in this case has framed the assessment on the basis of revised return filed on 1st July 2013 and taken the income from the same for computing the total income of assessee. It is also case of the Revenue that even the A.O. did not mention original return of income in the assessment order, therefore, even if it is considered that revised return dated 1st July 2013 which is basis for completing the assessment in Question was non-Est, then the entire assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f revenue and not for assessee. 18. However, u/s 263 the Id. Commissioner cannot revise a non- Est order in the eye of law. Since the assessment order was passed in pursuance to the notice u/ s 143(2), which was beyond time, therefore, the assessment order passed in pursuance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non-Est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non-service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non-Est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the right of assessee which has accrued in favour of assessee on account of its income being determined. If Id. Commissioner revises such an assessment order, then it would imply extending/ granting fresh limitation for passing fresh assessment order. It is settled law that by the action of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the above decision is that an omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax where such liability is created by distinct substantive provisions [charging sections]. Any such omission or defect may render the order made irregular-depending upon the nature of the provision not complied with -but certainly not void or illegal. 16. Ld. CIT DR further placed before us the order of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Padinjarekara Agencies (P.) Ltd, reported in [2017] 398 ITR 381, wherein Hon'ble High court has held as under: 11. However, in so far as this case concerned, Question to be considered is whether the omission to mention Section 143(2) literally in any one of the notices issued to the assessee would invalidate the assessment order. While in this context, it is relevant to take note of the Division Bench judgment of this court in K J. Thomas v. CIT [20081 301 ITR 301, where a Division Bench of this court has held thus: The appellant himself had produced annexure A-I which the reply filed by him pursuant to the details called for the Assessing Officer. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dismissed. 17. Ld. CIT DR also submitted before us a letter from the DCIT (Central) Circle-1, report dated 28.06.2023 w.r.t. production of case records and clarifications in the case of assessee qua the validity of return, the same has extracted as under: 18. Ld. CIT DR, in view of aforesaid submissions has argued that the since the assessee had not filed a valid return, even the same was not e- verified by the assessee within stipulated time, requirements of issuing notice u/s 143(2) was dispensed with and the same cannot rescue the contention of the assessee, thus the proceedings initiated u/s 263 are valid, well within the powers of Ld PCIT, deserves to be sustained. 19. In response to the aforesaid submissions of the Ld. CIT. DR, Ld. AR of the assessee, in rejoinder has submitted before us the copy of the acknowledgement of return filed in response to notice u/s 148 on 01.06.2019, which was E-Verify on 30.12.2019 and accepted by the revenue, copy of the same is extracted as under: 20. It was the submission of the Ld. AR that, according to the aforesaid ITR acknowledgment showing that it has been duly E-Verified by the assessee and accepted by the department, the IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the return filed as non-Est therefore, has concluded that there was no requirement of issuance of a notice u/s 143(2) in case of a non-Est return, Ld. PCIT also observed that the assessment should have been framed u/s 144 of the IT Act. The questions raised before us to be adjudicated are: (i) Whether a return filed beyond the prescribed time limit under the notice u/s 148, should be treated as non-Est return or not? (ii) Whether an assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 can be treated as invalid or non-Est, merely when a notice u/s 143(2) has not been issued? (iii) Whether the assessee can challenge the validity of assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3), during the Appellate proceedings pertaining to examination of validity of assumption of jurisdiction and the order passed u/s 263? (iv) If the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was found to be illegal or at nullity in the eyes of law, then, whether the Ld. PCIT had a valid jurisdiction to pass the impugned order u/s 263 to revise the non-Est assessment order? 23. The first question regarding validity of a return filed belatedly in response to notice u/s 148, we are of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order selected for revisionary proceedings, was a non-Est order. 26. Apropos, Question No. (4) that, if an assessment order passed u/s 143(3) was illegal or at nullity in the eyes of law then whether the Ld. PCIT holds a valid jurisdiction to initiate the revisionary proceedings and to pass an order u/s 263 on the basis of a non-Est assessment order, the answer is in negative. Our view is further fortified, from the view taken by ITAT, Raipur, in the case of Maruti Clean Coal Power Ltd. (supra), therefore, respectfully following the same, we are of the view that the order passed u/s 263, challenged by the assessee in the present case based on the settled position of law, since the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 which was selected for revisionary proceedings, itself had been held as invalid/ at nullity in the eye of law, therefore, the same could not have been revised by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. 27. With regard to the case laws relied upon by the Ld. CIT DR, we do not find any corelation with the issue involved in the present case to adopt the principle of law laid down in the referred decisions. In the case of Jai Prakash Singh (supra), Hon'ble Apex ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the open court on 22/11/2023. ============= Document 1 अनार Government of India Ministry of Finance: Department of Revenue Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, 08th Floor, Tower-A, CBD Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Ph. & Fax: 0771-2331059 Email. [email protected] F. No. DCIT(Central)-1)/RPR/ITAT-Anil Nachrani/2023-24/ To, Sir, 2. 3. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT-DR, Raipur (C.G.) Dated: 28.06.2023 Sub: Production of case records and clarification in the case of Anil Nachrani (PAN: ABIPN5928M) A.Y. 2012-13 -Regarding Kindly refer to the above subject. In this case notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2019 after taking necessary approval from Pr. Commissioner of income tax-1, Raipur, for initiating remedial action u/s 147 of the Act. Notice u/s 148 was served on 16.04.2019 vide which the assessee was required to file ITR within 30 days. However, assessee did not file any return within the stipulated time of 30 days. Therefore, letter was issued on 22.05.2019 to the assessee requiring him to file return in response to notice....