TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 143(2) read with section 254 of the Act was issued in the appellant case merely relying on the impugned assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer without calling for the case records. In doing so he failed to appreciate the fact that the statement of the assessing officer in paragraph 2 of the impugned assessment order is a copy paste mistake as issuing notice u/s 143(2) read with section 254 of the Act is totally unwarranted in the appellant case. Hence the order passed by the learned assessing officer is without assuming proper jurisdiction and hence the same is liable to be quashed. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in holding that the Learned Assessing Officer did not made any violation of CBDT twin circular no's 19/2019, dated 14.08.2019 and 27/2019, dated 26.09.2019 by not quoting the DIN on the impugned assessment order which is against the statutory requirements specified in the twin circulars and hence the said order is liable to be quashed. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in not passing the speaking ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the deceased Alluri Lakshmana Prasad. Except the above information, the assessee failed to prove the sources of money with evidence and creditworthiness of lenders inspite of being called for time and again. Hence, the Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act and thereafter completed the assessment and passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961 determining the total income at Rs. 52,04,480/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us. 6. Before us, ld.AR has drawn our attention to the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) wherein in Paragraph 8, it was recorded as under : "8. Grounds no. 01 to 02 being interlinked are taken up together for adjudication. The AO stated in para 2 of the assessment order, "Therefore in order to verify the sources of Rs. 50 lakhs in the background that the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed the income to the extent of Rs. 50 lakhs, prior approval was obtained from the Pr. CIT, K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of records from ITBA, the assessee has filed Return of income for the AN 2012-13 on 02.02.2013 u/s 139(4). However, the assessee replied vide letter dated 21.06.2019 stating that the Return of income was filed on 02.02.2013 declaring the' income from all the sources and requested to accept the Return of income filed. (iii) If no return in response to 148 is filed, the question of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) does not arise. In such a scenario the assessment was to be completed u/s 144 rws 147 However, the impugned order is seemed to have been passed u/s 143(3), rws 147 of the Act. Please, clarify. The assessee has not filed Return of income u/s 148. So notice u/s 143(2) does not arise in this case. However the assessee was responsive during the scrutiny proceedings Further, assessee's statement was recorded on oath in response to summons u/s 131 issued. Hence, the AO has passed order u/s 143(3) rws 147. (2) It is verified from the Asst Record that no DIN is mentioned on the order. The assessee has taken a specific ground on this issue. You are requested to furnish proof of DIN generated & communicated to the assessee in respect of the Asst Ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onferred by section 143(2) and hence the said Assessment order passed is bad-in-law and is liable to be quashed. In this regard the appellant is placing reliance on the following case laws; (i) The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon, (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Court that issuance of notice under section 143(2) is mandatory even in block assessments. (ii) CIT v. Salarpur Cold Storage, (2019) 50 taxmann.com 105 (All-HC). For framing order under section 143(3) it is necessary to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, and in absence of notice under section 143(2) the assumption of jurisdiction itself would be invalid. (iii) Pr. CIT v. Jignesh Bhagwandas Patel (Guj-HC) ITA No.282,283 of 2019. The reassessment order passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act cannot held as valid and sustainable and hence, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was right in holding the same as not valid and unsustainable. (iv) Travancore Diagnostics (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, (2016) 390 ITR 167 (Ker-HC). Omission to issue notice under section 143(2) is incurable defect even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed order in a cryptic manner mentioning that "the submissions made by the assessee are misleading and false" and we do not subscribe the finding recorded by the ld.CIT(A) as there was no basis for recording that the submissions of the assessee were misleading and false. Quite contrary to the findings of the ld.CIT(A), when we called report from the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer categorically mentioned that the notice was issued manually on 24.06.2019, however, the proof of service of the notice was not available in the office. Thereafter, it was mentioned that on verification of ITBA Portal, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued electronically. As mentioned hereinabove, as per the Instruction No.1 of 2018 issued by the CBDT, the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is required to be issued electronically and there is no provision of issuing notice manually. 13. Based on the report given by the Assessing Officer and the submissions made before us, it is abundantly clear that the Assessing Officer before making additions have not issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act though it was required to be issued electronically. The above said fact was confirmed by the ld. DR when h....