Vodithala Education Society, Hyderabad V. ADIT(Exemptions)-II, Hyderabad

CO 55/HYD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8931 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R LAXMAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K V CHALAMAIAH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Opportunity of being heard; Procedural lapse; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 147; 148; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1163/HYD/ 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-00. ADIT (E), -V- VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYDERABAD. HY DERABAD. PAN:AAAAV1053H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.55/HYD/2011 (IN ITA NO.1163/H/2011. A.Y.1999- 00) VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, -V- ADIT(E)-II HYDERABAD. HYDERABAD. PAN:AAAAV1053H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY SHRI R. LAXMAN ASSESSEE BY SRI K.V. CHALAMAIAH DATE OF HEARING 18-07-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13-09-2013 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AND CROSS OBJECTION B Y THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28-2- 2011 PASSED BY THE CIT (A), GUNTUR IN ITA NO.0225/DDIT(E)- II/CIT(A)/GNT/07-08 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 1999- 2000. 2 ITA NO.1163 & CO 55 OF 2011 VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYD. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE, A SOCIETY IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF RUNNING EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. F OR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME ON 30-1- 2002 DECLARING NIL INCOME. AS NOTED IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SINCE THE RETURN WAS NOT FIL ED WITHIN THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED U/S 139(1) AND EVEN THE EXTENDE D PERIOD PROVIDED U/S 139(4) OF THE ACT, THE RETURN WAS TREA TED AS NON EST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED ACTION U/S 147 OF T HE ACT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 21-3-2006 WH ICH WAS SERVED ON THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE SRI K.V. CHALAMAIAH ON 15-9-2006. INFORMATION RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF SURVEY OPERATION CONDUCTED U/S 133A IN JULY, 2005 A T RAMTEKH, MAHARASHTRA DISCLOSED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAD COLLECTED RS.27,78,000 AS DONATION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REFLECT ED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ISSUED A LETTER TO THE ASSES SEE SEEKING HIS OBJECTIONS AS TO WHY THE EXEMPTION U/S 11 SHOUL D NOT BE DENIED. IN RESPONSE TO THE AFORESAID LETTER DATED 6-11-2007 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 STATED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY IT AND FURTHER SINCE NO VALID RETURN IS EXISTING FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S 11 OF THE ACT WOULD NOT ARISE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER REJECTED T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSES SMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28-12- 2007 BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,09,29 ,130/-. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 3. IN COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A ), THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT 3 ITA NO.1163 & CO 55 OF 2011 VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYD. ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO VALID SERVICE OF NOT ICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS SERVED ON A PERSO N WHO WAS NOT AUTHORISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE NOTICE ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS ALSO INVALID DUE TO THE FACT THAT NO NOTICE EITHER U/S 143(2) OR 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETING TH E ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE CIT (A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON T HE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMENTS IN THE REMA ND REPORT, THE CIT (A) PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 28-2-2011. SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WIT H REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT, THE CIT (A ) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO FAR AS THE REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS CONCERNED BY NEGATING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SO FAR AS THE OTHER CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASS ED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT DUE TO NON ISSUANC E OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE CIT (A) ACCEPTED SUCH CONTEN TION AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED WITHOUT ISSUING NO TICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IN T HIS REGARD IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER:- REGARDING OTHER CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT TH E A.O. ERRED IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) BEFORE SERVIC E OF MANDATORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, WHICH IS NOT A VALID ASSESSMENT HAS A POINT TO CONSIDER. THE A.O. CONSPICUOUSLY WAS SILENT ON THIS ISSUE. PERUSAL OF RECORDS REVEALED THAT NO SUCH INCIDENCE WAS SPOTTED. IT IS A SETTLED MATT ER BY NOW THAT ISSUE AND SERVICE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS MAN DATORY FOR A VALID ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE, THAT TOO WITH IN TWELVE MONT HS FROM THE END OF 4 ITA NO.1163 & CO 55 OF 2011 VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYD. THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED. THE A LLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV SHARMA REPORTED IN 92010) 232 CTR 303 (ALL.) HELD THAT THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 143(2) , IS MANDATORY IN NATURE AND IT IS OBLIGATORY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO APPLY HIS MIND TO THE CONTENTS OF THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND THEREAFTER ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2), B EFORE PROCEEDING TO DECIDE THE CONTROVERSY REGARDING ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT, NON ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2), AFTER FILING OF RETURN BY THE APPELLANT VITIATED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN FACT, THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON REPORTED IN (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) HELD THAT IF AN ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COM PLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 158BC, ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS MANDATORY AND THAT THE NON ISSUE OF THE NOTICE IS NOT A PROCEDURA L IRREGULARITY AND CANNOT BE CURED. THUS, THE RE-COMPUTATION OF INCOME BY THE A.O. HAS TO BE HELD INVALID AND THUS, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY T HE CIT (A), THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, WHILE THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED A CROSS OBJECTION CHALLENGING THAT PART OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) WHEREIN HE UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF SERVICE OF NOTI CE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE DEPAR TMENT. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING OUT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS WHETHER THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 1 47 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF NON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT. 5. IN SO FAR AS THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) I S CONCERNED, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ORALLY AS W ELL AS THROUGH HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT A N OTICE U/S 143(2) ASSUMES IMPORTANCE PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE IT DE NOTES AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THE PRINCIPAL REASON WHY NON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS TO BE TREATED AS FATAL FOR AN ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT IS 5 ITA NO.1163 & CO 55 OF 2011 VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYD. BECAUSE OF THE UNDERLYING PRESUMPTION, AS HELD IN T HE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON (321 ITR 362), THAT NO ASSESSEE SHA LL BE PUT TO ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF BEIN G HEARD. HOWEVER, WHEN AN OPPORTUNITY IS EXTENDED, IN WHICH FORM IT IS PROVIDED IS NOT MATERIAL AS FORM CANNOT OVERRIDE S UBSTANCE. HOWEVER, IF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WOULD SHOW THAT AN OPPORTUNITY WAS OTHERWISE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE T HEN ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE INVALID FOR NON ISS UANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED TO THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE AP HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CWT VS. PACHIGOLLA NARAISM HA RAO (134 ITR 640) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE MACHINERY PRO VISIONS ARE TO BE CONSTRUED IN A MANNER THAT WOULD NOT DEFEAT OR RENDER THE CHARGING PROVISION OTIOSE, OTHERWISE, PUBLIC INTER EST WILL BE JEOPARDIZED BY VEXATIOUS LITIGATION. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REFERRING TO A DECISION OF AGRA BENCH OF INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF CHANDRA BHAN BANSAL VS. DCIT (79 ITD 639 SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) WAS WRONG IN CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE REASON THAT NO N OTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED WITHIN 12 MONTHS. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DOING SO, THE CIT (A) ALSO LOST SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, H ENCE THERE CANNOT ANY REQUIREMENT OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION KERALA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF K.J. THOMAS VS. CIT (301 ITR 301). 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE US. THE CONT ENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO AFORESAID ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S COMPLETED THE 6 ITA NO.1163 & CO 55 OF 2011 VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYD. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS MANDATORY THAT BEFORE PROCEEDING F OR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, A NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS REQUI RED TO BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSED. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ADMIT TEDLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 143(2 ) OR U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE REFERRING TO THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT (A) SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED IN THE REMAN D REPORT THAT TO PASS AN ORDER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 O F THE ACT, IT IS NECESSARY TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OR U/S 142 (1) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COUL D NOT POSSIBLY HAVE MADE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTI ON 147 WITHOUT MEETING THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EVEN ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT (A) WAS CORRE CT IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONTENTION, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED U PON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE ALSO CA REFULLY APPLIED OUR MIND TO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIE S. UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN CASE OF THE AS SESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT M ANDATES THAT 7 ITA NO.1163 & CO 55 OF 2011 VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYD. FOR AN ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS SPECIFYING THE PARTICULARS OF ANY CLAIM OF LOSS, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF WHICH THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE TO BE INADMISSIBLE AND REQUI RING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM ON THE SPECIFIED DATE AND TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR PARTICULARS ON WHICH THE AS SESSEE MAY RELY UPON IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS APPARENT FROM THE MATERIA LS ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, NO NOTICE EITHER U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT OR SECTION 142( 1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETING ASSESS MENT. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED IT AS 143(3) READ WIT H SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS TRIED TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT W HEN THERE IS NO VALID RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT SUCH CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATS TH E RETURN FILED BELATEDLY TO BE A NON EST RETURN THEN CERTAINLY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE PROCEEDED FOR MAKING ASSESSM ENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ONCE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER PROCEEDS TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, T HEN THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT UNDER THE STATUTE IS THAT HE MUST ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DO NE IN THE PRESENT CASE. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA) THE REQUIREMENT OF ISSUI NG NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT AND NO T A CURABLE PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY. WHEN THE STATUTE REQUIRES AN ACT TO BE DONE IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, THEN IT HAS TO BE DONE IN THAT 8 ITA NO.1163 & CO 55 OF 2011 VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYD. MANNER ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING PROCEEDE D TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, NOTICE U/S 143(2) SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AVING NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESS MENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS ADMITTED THIS FACT AND HAS STATED THAT A T LEAST ONE NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS REQ UIRED TO BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESS MENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 8. SO FAR AS THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEAR NED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARE CONCERNED, ON CAREF UL EXAMINATION, WE FIND THEM TO BE FACTUALLY DISTINGUI SHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN CA SE OF K.J. THOMAS VS. CIT (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WA S REJECTED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A DETAILED REPLY THEREFORE IT WAS HELD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN OPP ORTUNITY TO FILE A REPLY AND A DETAILED REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO NEED FOR ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS IS REVEALED FROM THE DISCUSSIO N MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST INSTAN CE HAS OBJECTED TO THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT ISSUING ANY FURTHER NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE EITHER U/S 143(2) OR U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, THE DE CISION OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH IN CASE OF CHANDRA BHAN BANSAL VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WILL NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS EVER ISSUE D TO THE 9 ITA NO.1163 & CO 55 OF 2011 VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYD. ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF HONBLE AP HIGH COURT I N CASE OF CWT VS. PACHIGALLA NARSIMHA RAO (SUPRA) IS ALSO FACTUA LLY DISTINGUISHABLE AND DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE U/S 143(2) AS PER THE ST ATUTORY MANDATE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS LEGALLY UNS USTAINABLE. IN SUCH VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH AND IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD . THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. C.O. NO.55/HYD/2011 : 9. SINCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE DECIDING THE DEPARTMENT AL APPEAL HEREINABOVE, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN CROSS OBJECTION HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND HENCE THE CROSS OBJECTION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT A ND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13-9-2013. SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 13 TH SEPT. 2013 JMR* 10 ITA NO.1163 & CO 55 OF 2011 VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYD. COPY TO:- 1) ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (E)-II, ROOM NO.307A, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 2) VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, 7-1-621/A, SR NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT (A), GUNTUR. 4) DIT (E), HYDERABAD. 5.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDERA BAD. * 11 ITA NO.1163 & CO 55 OF 2011 VODITHALA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HYD.