TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29 ITR 383 (SC) and Jute Corporation of India Limited Vs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC). 3. The Ld. DR did raise objection regarding admission of ground No. 1, 2, 3 & 4. However, he did not controvert legal position that ground No. 3 of assessee of legal in nature that goes to the root of the validity of assessment order. 4. Keeping in view the submissions of both the side prayer of assessee and application of admission of additional ground No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 the same are admitted for adjudication which read as under : - 1. "The impugned assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction as the said assessment is completed without complying with mandatory legal requirements of the provisions of section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act therefore such assessment is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and also in law, the impugned assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 143 (3) of the Act is invalid and void-ab-initio for want of valid notice u/s. 143 (2) as per law as evident from fact that when return in response to notice was admittedly filed on 26.10.2015, the notice u/s. 143 (2) is issued on very same day i.e. 26.10.2015 which shows non....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act. 9. The Ld. AR vehemently contended that on 26.10.2015 no assessment order was in the possession of Assessing Officer, therefore, he issued notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act without considering the return of income, therefore, the assessee did not assume valid jurisdiction to pass the assessment order for A.Y. 2014-15, therefore, impugned order may kindly be quashed on these two counts. 10. The Ld. AR has also placed reliance on the judgment of jurisdictional High Courts of Delhi in the case M/s. BNB Investment & Properties Vs. DCIT & Ors. reported in 68 ITR 567 (Del.) following the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Ltd. 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) and Pr. CIT Vs. Server Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 397 ITR 400 (Delhi). 11. Replying to the above the Ld. CIT DR submitted that satisfaction u/s. 153 C is required for A.Y. 2008-09 to 2013-14 and not for the impugned A.Y. 2014-15. Further, there is no reliance of any seized documents on the basis of which u/s. 153C satisfaction was recorded. Therefore, the impugned assessment year is a regular assessment year u/s. 143 (3) as there is no reference of any seized documents while making the addition. Therefore, Gener....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hird party was conducted on 27.06.2013 and since some alleged material was found during the course of search which was, as per AO pertaining to present assessee, then the AO of searched persons recorded satisfaction u/s. 153C of the Act on 22.09.2015 (assessee paper book page No. 35), therefore, in the present case the relevant assessment years for initiating u/s. 153C would be assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 and present assessment years 2014-15 falls within the said block period of six assessment years, therefore, the AO could have assume valid jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s. 143 (3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act only after issuing u/s. 153C of the Act. Therefore, since admittedly no notice u/s. 153C of the Act has been issue by the AO in the present case. The Ld. CIT (DR) in the written submissions has stated that the satisfaction u/s. 153C was from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2013-14 and not for the impugned assessment year 2014-15 and there was no reliance was placed by the AO on any seized document on the basis which u/s. 153C satisfaction was recorded for the impugned assessment year, therefore, impugned year is a regular assessment year u/s. 143 (3) of the Act and therefore, there is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Y. 2014-15 for present assessee i.e. other person and, therefore, the AO was in treating the present assessment year as year of the search for the other person and thereby the AO was not required to issue u/s. 153C of the Act to the assessee in the present case. 17. In view of the above, we are not in agreement with the contention of the Ld. CIT (DR) that present A.Y. 2014-15 should be taken as year of search for the other person also, therefore, there was no requirement of issuing u/s. 153C of the Act to the assessee before initiating assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2014- 15. 18. In the case of CIT Vs. Mapsa (supra) in para-6 the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of RRJ Securities Limited (supra) and Pr. CIT Vs. Server Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) categorically held that in the case of other person the six assessment years for which assessment / reassessment could be made u/s. 153 C of the Act also have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of the assets / documents to the AO of the assessee i.e. 22.09.2015 in the present case, therefore, present A.Y. 2014-15 would obviously fall within the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to frame assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 21. Replying to the above the Ld. CIT (DR) submitted that the proposition rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (supra) does not apply to the present case as in that case the AO issue notice u/s. 143 (2) of the act immediately after receiving return of income hand to hand and, therefore, it was held that notice was ready even prior to the filing of return, therefore, the AO had no opportunity to apply his mind u/s. 143 (2). But in the present case the AO was having the copy of the return, before issuing notice u/s. 143 (2) of the Act dated 26.10.2015, therefore, the benefit of said judgment is not available for the assessee in the present case 22. Placing rejoinder to the above, the Ld. AR again drew our attention to the page No. 40 of assessee paper book and submitted that the assessee on 26.10.2015 only filed copy of acknowledgment of E-filing of E-return on 29.12.2014 and no copy of return was placed before the AO on 26.10.2015. Thus, the AO without having benefit of perusal and application of mind to the return of income the AO issued u/s. 143(2) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d return. However, the date of the notice was mistakenly mentioned as March 23, 2000. 10. Assuming the aforesaid to be true, the notice was served on the authorized representative simultaneously on his filing the return which clearly indicates that the notice was ready even prior to the filing of the return. Section 143(2) of the said Act clearly indicates that where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under section 142(1), the Assessing Officer shall- "(i) where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying particulars of such claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief and require him, on a date to be specified therein to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence or particulars specified therein or on which the assessee may rely, in support of such claim ... (ii) notwithstanding the aforesaid, if the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid the tax in any manner, he may se....