MANSUKHLAL GEDIA, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 24(2)(4), MUMBAI

CO 100/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9166 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Block assessment
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND RAJENDRA (AM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO.8331/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2 4 (2) (4), C-13, 6 TH FL.,ROOM NO.605, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051. / VS. SHRI MANSUKHLAL G GEDIA B/11, NEW GEETANJALI RAHEJA TOWNSHIP, MALAD (E), MUMBAI-400097. ( & / APPELLANT) .. ( ' & / RESPONDENT) CROSS OBJECTION/ ' NO.100/MUM/2012 IN ./I.T.A. NO.8331/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) SHRI MANSUKHLAL G GEDIA B/11, NEW GEETANJALI RAHEJA TOWNSHIP, MALAD (E), MUMBAI-400097 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2 4 (2) (4), C-13, ROOM NO.605, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051. ( & / APPELLANT) .. ( ' & / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AABPM1713H & / REVENUE BY : SHRI GANESH BARE ' & * /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.SUBRAMANIAN * - / DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2013 * - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.12.2013 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AND CROSS-OBJ ECTION BEING CO NO.100/MUM/2012 BY THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.8331/MUM/2010 CROSS OBJECTION NO.100/MUM/2012 2 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 17.9.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 VIDE WHICH T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.3.2006 PASSED BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER U/S 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) ON THE GR OUND THAT THE AO HAD NOT ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS-OBJECTION WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DEALING WITH GROUND OF APPEAL BEARING NO.3 RAISED IN THE APPEAL MEMO; 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD. AO ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION ON AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,2 7,012/- AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSESSING PROPER REASON. 3. IN RESPECT OF THE APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMENT, WE OBSERVE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE AO FAILED TO ISS UE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT AFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 28.6.20 04 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT THAT THE RETURN EARLIER FILED BY THE AS SESSEE BE TREATED AS RETURN OF INCOME FILED PURSUANCE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE SAID ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT CIT & ANR VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT IS INVALID. IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT IN THE SAID CASE RELATE TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT MADE U/SS 158BD/BC WHICH WAS QUASHED. FURTHER, THE HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S EQBAL SINGH SINDHANA IN ITA NO.372 OF 2007 DATED 3.4.2007 AS ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHAN TEXTILES P LIMITED 287 ITR 370 (DEL.) THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT HAD TO BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE FROM THE END OF M ONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED AND THE SERVICE OF NOTICE AFTER PRESCRIBED PERIOD WOULD NOT RELATE BACK TO THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE NOTICE. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT TH E DEPARTMENT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT AO FAILED TO ISSUE NOTI CE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ) IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY DEPARTM ENT. 4. IN VIEW OF OUR ORDER THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I S NOT VALID AND THE SAME HAS BEEN RIGHTLY QUASHED BY LD. CIT(A), THE CROSS-OBJE CTIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THEREFORE, CROSS-OBJECTIONS OF THE AS SESSEE ARE ALSO DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO.8331/MUM/2010 CROSS OBJECTION NO.100/MUM/2012 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND CROSS-OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE, BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24TH DECEMBER, 2013 . F G 24 TH DECEMBER, 2013 * SD SD ( / RAJENDRA) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: /12/2013 . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. & / THE APPELLANT 2. ' & / THE RESPONDENT. 3. K ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. K / CIT CONCERNED 5. L 'N , - N , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - N , /ITAT, MUMBAI