TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The ld. CIT DR also pointed out that ld.CIT (Appeals) has declared the assessment order as bad in law on account of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. counsel for the assessee has defended the order of the CIT (Appeals) on this issue also with the help of Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. Though no specific application has been filed by the ld. counsel for the assessee, but he did not object to the contention of ld. DR for adjudicating the issue, whether assessment order deserves to be treated as invalid on account of non-issuance of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act ? Therefore, we will be dealing with these two issues in this appeal. The second is, whether assessment order is to be treated as invalid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the record carefully. As far as decisions relied upon by the ld. counsel for the assessee are concerned, there is a distinction amongst facts of those cases vis-à-vis the present case. For example, in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra), return was filed u/s 158BC of the Income Tax Act i.e. for the Block Period. Before this decision, it was a debatable issue, whether Section 143(2) notice is required to be issued in a return filed u/s 158BC ? Now, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that for commencing the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory. We do not find any dispute with the proposition that as and when a return is being filed u/s 139(1), notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory for scrutinizing the return. But, her....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of belated return has to be taken by the A.O. while computing the income but assessment order would not be invalid simply for the reason that notice u/s 143(2) was not issued on a belated return. Therefore, on this ground, assessment order cannot be declared invalid. 5.2 As far as the first issue is concerned, we briefly take note of the finding of the ld.CIT (Appeals), which read as under : Ground no 5: That the AO has wrongly made addition of Rs. 4,59,29,599/-on account of understatement of sale without giving the details of transaction of Rs. 17,23,45,690/- available with the department. The figure of Rs.17,23,45,690/-and also not provided any material to substantiate the sale of Rs.17,23,45,690/- and therefore addition is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elates to export year under consideration and export made in preceding year. The details of export alongwith the bills has been produced during the appellate proceedings. The appellant has submitted that the bank knocked down/ cleared the outstanding shipping bills in bank register after complete verification of all documents irrespective of year of export and date of realization. The appellant submitted the information in respect of outstanding export bills which were cleared/ knockdown during the year under consideration by bank irrespective of date of shipping and date of realization. In reply before the appellate proceedings dated 02.12.2022 and 26.04.2024, the export details in the year under consideration has been el....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,690/-. 2. The export bills given by the appellant amounts to 2508710 US dollars which amounts to Rs. 15,14,60,986. The Customers/Importers have made deduction of 405,049 US dollars on account of damaged material. The total value of deduction made by Importers/ customers was Rs.2,51,13,049 as per and therefore the company has shown export sale net of deduction at Rs 12,63,47,937 in Profit and Loss account for the year under consideration. This fact has not been disputed by the AO during the assessment proceedings. 3. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted the export invoices as on 31.03.2014 which has been shipped on 05.04.2014 has a value of Rs.2,08,84,704/-, the explanation of the appellant that sh....