AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 21.10.2014 for the assessment year 2008-09 and dated 22.10.2014 for the assessment year 2009-2010. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 u/s.143(3)/147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 27.3.2014 and for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 30.1.2015 u/s.143(3)/147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 without issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. He referred to page 21 of the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2008-09 and page 18 of the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2009-2010 and pointed out therefrom that the CIT(A) has stated that since no return was e-filed, it may not be possible to generate notice u/s.143(2) through the system. However, during the course of original assessment proceedings, notice u/S 143(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the effect that the original return filed should be treated as a return pursuant a notice under section 148 of the Act is fatal to the order of reassessment. Therefore, he prayed that reassessment order passed u/s.147 of the Act in both the assessment years under appeal should be quashed. 5. Ld Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd., (2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del) and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court held that where the impugned assessment is in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and the Act does not specifically provide that the assessment made under section 147 of the Act will be after issue of the notice u/s.143(2) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct was issued to the assessee in both the years. On the above stated facts, the contentions of ld A.R. of the assessee is that the impugned reassessment order passed for the assessment years under appeal should be quashed and for this he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Travancore Diagnostics (P) Ltd (supra) and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt Ltd.(supra). 10. On the other hand, the contention of ld D.R. is that as the assessee participated in the reassessment proceedings, therefore, the assessment order is valid and issue of notice u/s.143(2) before framing the reassessment order u/s.147 is not mandatory. For this, he relied on the following decis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments. 33. The extended question then is whether even if the assessee is deemed to have participated in the proceedings under Section 143, even without the Assessing Officer having issued the mandatory notice, would the Revenue be entitled to the benefit provided under Section 292BB of the Act. Section 292BB creates an estoppel against the assessee in claiming that no notice has been served on him, if he has participated in the proceedings. However, the said section does not in any manner grant any privilege to the Assessing Officer in dispensing with the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. Since the jurisdiction under Section 143 is founded on the issuance of a notice under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contained therein only after a notice under Section 143(2) had been validly issued. When it is virtually admitted that no such notice had been issued, the Assessing Officer loses even the authority to enter into the jurisdiction under Section 143 and the participation or otherwise of the assessee would be of no avail. It is here that the words of Rowlat, J. vide supra in paragraph 5 of this judgment assumes climataric importance because in taxation nothing is to be intended and nothing can be presumed. If a notice under Section 143(2) has not been issued, the Assessing Officer cannot claim the benefit under Section 292BB and the claim that the earlier notice extracted in paragraph 29 of the judgment was intended to be the notice issued und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dhya Bharat Energy Corporation by order dated 17.8.2011 in review petition No.441/2011 in ITA No.950/2008, whereby the Court reviewed its main judgement in the matter rendered on 11th July, 2011 on the ground that the said appeal had not been admitted on the question concerning the mandatory compliance with the requirement of issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In this review order, the Hon'ble Court noted that at the time of admission of the appeal on 17th February, 2011, after noticing that in the said case that no notice under section 143(2) had ever been issued, the Court held that no question of law arose on that aspect. The upshot of the above discussion is that the decision of this Court in CIT vs Madhya Bharat Energy....