TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der, should have taken in to the considering the nature of assessment, and pre-conditions of the proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961, hence failure on the part of CIT(A)-12 Kol renders such order is unlawful, unsustainable in the eyes of law, a patent mistake, against the rules of natural justice, hence liable to be set aside. (relied on the order of ITAT B Bench Kol, dated 31st March 2022 in ITA No- 75/Kol/2020) iii. For that and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-12 Kol should have considered Gr no-l before concluding the matter in the event of non-serving the notices due to postal fault, and in absence of appearance at the hearing, though the appellant/assessee normally stayed at the address mentioned in the appeal petition. iv. For that and under the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law . Ld CIT(A)-12 Kol, failed to discharge the lawful duty to serve such notices to other address fixing hearing, which is available in records, is a matter of facts as well as fault on the part of authority below, renders whole act is liable to be void ab initio and set aside. v. For that and under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the same by observing that assessee has failed to submit documentary evidence and explanation in support of the grounds raised in his appeal. 4. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before adverting on the appeal, we note that impugned order of ld. CIT(A) is dated 09.06.2016 which the assessee has claimed to receive it on 02.12.2022, which is almost six and half years after the passing of the said order. In this respect, assessee has placed on record an explanation vide letter dated 15.12.2022. According to this, assessee claimed that assessee was not aware of the disposal of his appeal since no notices were received by him, fixing the hearing by ld. CIT(A). Later, on receipts of demand notice from the ld. AO, it came to the knowledge of the assessee that his appeal has been disposed of, for which no order has been received by him. Assessee then made a request in the office of ld. CIT(A) as well as ld. AO for obtaining a copy of the impugned order of ld. CIT(a) which was made available to him on 02.12.2022. Thereafter, assessee presented his appeal before the Tribunal on 13.12.2022. There is no delay in filing the present appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reasons to believe which were recorded for initiating the proceedings u/s 148. Also, there is no mention about the supply of copy of reasons to believe as recorded by the ld. AO, to the assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee could not make any submission as he never received notices for the dates for which hearings were fixed. 7.1. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee has referred to a letter filed by the assessee under duly acknowledged seal from the office of ITO Ward-40(1), Kolkata praying for supply of copy of reasons to believe recorded by the ld. AO. From the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shaft India Ltd. (supra), we note that Hon'ble Supreme Court mandated the Assessing Officer to furnish reasons within a requisite time. On receipt of reasons, the assessee is entitled to file objection to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the present case before us, ld. counsel is contesting that this mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been complied with by the ld. AO and, therefore, the assessment completed and demand so raised is liable to be quashed, as bad in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the counter-affidavit, then the date of supply of reasons, based on this argument, would be 5-11- 2007. This immediately makes it clear that the Assessing Officer, who was bound to furnish his reasons within a reasonable time, did not do so. The period which elapsed between 11-5-2004, when the petitioner made the request for communicating the reasons, and 5-11-2007, the date when the counter-affidavit was filed, can certainly not be regarded as a reasonable period of time. Apart from this, we must not forget the provisions of section 149 which prescribes the timelimit for a notice under section 148. Section 149(1)(b) stipulates the outer limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year where the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to rupees one lakh or more for that year. This means that a notice under section 148, in the present case, could not, in any event, have been issued after six years from the end of the assessment year 1998-99, i.e., after 31-3-2005. In whichever way we look at it, a notice under section 148 without the communication of the reasons therefor is meaningless inasmuch as the Assessing Offic....