Shri Kairfulhusan B.Pathan, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(1), Baroda

ITA 127/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9759 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Procedural lapse; Block assessment; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NOS ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 127/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B.PATHAN RAMWADI CHISTIYA NAGAR CHHANI ROAD BARODA 390 001 PAN: ALVPP 0082D ITO WARD-2(1), BARODA 2. 128/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI HOSHIYARALAM 301-BALAJI AVENUE -ADDRESS SAME AS ABOVE- PAN: ADHPP 6532 E -DO- 3. 129/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI NAKIALAM INDRISHKHAN PATHAN -ADDRESS SAME AS ABOVE- PAN: ALUPP0600 J -DO- 4. 130/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI ABDULHASSAN INDRISHKHAN PATHAN -ADDRESS SAME AS ABOVE- PAN: ALVPP0099G -DO- 5. 131/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI SALIMKHAN ALAMGIR PATHAN, BARODA -ADDRESS SAME AS ABOVE- PAN: AEYPP3027Q -DO- 6. 132/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI ZAKIRKHAN JAHURKHAN PATHAN -ADDRESS SAME AS ABOVE- PAN: ALYPP 0510 F -DO- 7. 133/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI TAHHABRALIKHAA A. PATHAN, BARODA -ADDRESS SAME AS ABOVE- PAN: BEPPP 6884 M -DO- 8. 134/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI SAMSULHAFIZ M. THE ITO ITA NOS.127 TO 139/AHD/201 2 SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B. PATHAN AND 12 ORS. VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - PATHAN, BARODA PAN: BDXPP 6260J WARD-2(1) BARODA 9. 135/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI MOHAMAD TAKI BHUREKHAN PATHAN, BARODA -ADDRESS SAME AS ABOVE- PAN: BDXPP6302H -DO- 10. 136/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI ANWAR AKHTAR SHAIKH, BARODA PAN: AXEPS 0016 M -DO- 11. 137/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI MOHD AKTHAR MOHD. ISMAIL SHAIKH PAN: CMUPS 3471 H -DO- 12. 138/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI HARUNBHAI ISHABHAI SHAIKH, BARODA PAN: BJHPS 3760 E -DO- 13. 139/AHD/12 2005-06 SHRI MOHAMMED ZUBER PATHAN, BARODA PAN: AIYPP0375P -DO- ASSESSEE BY : MR. ANIL R. SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : MR. JAYANT JHAVORI, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING 08/12/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09/ 12 /2016 / O R D E R THE PRESENT THIRTEEN APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, BARODA [CIT(A) IN SHORT ] DATED 21/10/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2005-06. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED AND ALSO INTER-CONNECTED IN ALL THESE APP EALS, THESE APPEALS ITA NOS.127 TO 139/AHD/201 2 SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B. PATHAN AND 12 ORS. VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. COMMON GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THE APPEALS THAT TH E LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE (EXTRACTED FROM ITA NO.127/AHD/2012 AY 2005-06 IN THE CASE OF SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B.PATHA N). (I) PROVISIONS OF SEC.292BB INSERTED W.E.F. 1.4.20 08 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 . THE ORDER PASSED WITHOUT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) THEREFORE BEING ERRONEOUS SHOULD BE TREATED AS NULL AND VOID. (II) THE AO HIMSELF DID NOT HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSESS EE AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SEC.147 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. THE REOPENING OF THE CASE THEREFORE, IS NOT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. (III) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF CAPITAL CONTRIBU TION MADE BY ASSESSEE IN PARTNERSHIP-FIRM. (III) NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF INCOME/SAVING O F EARLIER AND CURRENT YEAR. (IV) INCOME AS ASSESSED THE AO ON REGULAR AND AGR ICULTURAL INCOME. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, CONTENDS THAT ALL THESE ISSUES ARE COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS PASSED A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 21/10/2011 NAMING ALL TH E ASSESSEES. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT BY GROUND NO.(I) THE ASSESSEE HAS CH ALLENGED THE VALIDITY ITA NOS.127 TO 139/AHD/201 2 SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B. PATHAN AND 12 ORS. VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - OF REASSESSMENT AS NO NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE AC T WHICH IS MANDATORY WAS EVER SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE IS CLE AR FROM THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY LD.ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) IN AL L THESE CASES WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 4.1.1. A FACTUAL REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 20.09.2011, HAS REPLIED AS UNDER:- ON VERIFICATION OF THE CASE RECORD, IT IS SEEN THA T THE NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED IN THIS CASE. HOWEVER, I N RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.148 DATED 05/08/2008 OF THE IT ACT THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.12.2009 AND ATTENDED THE HEA RING ON 27.10.2009, 12.11.2009, 14.12.2009 AND 28.12.2009 T HOUGH HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SH. NAVNIT G.SHAH, CA AND THE ORDER SHEET NOTING CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDING WERE DULY RECORDED AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY HAVE BEEN PROV IDED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS/EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF PROPO SED ADDITION. THIS PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY AWARE OF ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION REGARDING THE NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.14392) OF THE IT ACT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDING. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 92BB SQUARELY APPLY IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE IS NOT TENABLE AND ON THIS B ASIS ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE VOID. 4. THE LD.CIT(A), HOWEVER, WITHOUT DISPUTING THE RE MAND REPORT UPHELD THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELYING ON SECT ION 292BB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT') BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- ITA NOS.127 TO 139/AHD/201 2 SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B. PATHAN AND 12 ORS. VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - 4.1.2. IN THE REJOINDER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REPORT, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO VERY WELL CONFIRMED , THAT NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SE.292BB SQUA RELY APPLY IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE AT APPELLATE STAGE IS NOT TENABLE. IN THIS REGARD THI S IS TO SUBMIT THAT SEC.292BB DEALS WITH NON SERVING OF NOTICE AND NOT WITH NON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND OT HER APPELLANTS NOTICE U/S. 143(2) HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED AB-INITIO A ND HENCE PASSING OF ORDER U/S.143(3) WITHOUT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) MAKES THE ORDER NULL AND VOID. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THIS IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SEC.292 BB HAS BEEN INSERTED W.E.F. 1.4.2008 WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENTS ARE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND TH EREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SEC.292 BB ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER APPELLANTS. 4.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REMAND REPORT. SINCE SECTION 292 BB WAS INSERTED W.E.F. 0 1.04.2008 I.E. BEFORE THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148, THESE P ROVISIONS WILL APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE AND ALL CASES INITIATED A FTER THE DATE OF INSERTION OF THIS SECTION, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE A.Y. THEY RELATE TO. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT SECTION 292 BB CURES ONLY THE NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE AND NOT THE NONISSUE OF N OTICE, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. QUA THE ASSESSEE, BOTH SITUATIONS ARE IN EFFECT THE SAME. IN FACT, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAM NARAIN BANSAL 13 TAXMANN.COM 216 (PU NJAB AND HARYANA), HAS VERY CLEARLY HELD THAT :- WHERE ASSESSEE HAD PARTICIPATED IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT RAISING ANY OBJECTION REGARDING ITA NOS.127 TO 139/AHD/201 2 SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B. PATHAN AND 12 ORS. VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) , REASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT BE HELD INVALID FOR NO N- ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). 4.2.1. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NO OBJECTION T O THE NON-ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS TAKEN DURING RE-ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS AND PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE ACCEPTED THIS FACT VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATE 04.1 0.2011. HENCE THE OBJECTION OF THE APPELLATE IS NOT VALID AND THI S GROUND OF APPEAL IS FAILS. 4.1. IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSISTENT VIEW HELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- SL.NO(S) IN THE CASE OF.. REPORTED IN 1. CIT VS. SUKHINI P. MODI (2014) 367 ITR 682 (GUJ.) 2. CIT VS. PANORAMA BUILDERS (P.) LTD. (2014) 45 TAXMANN.COM 159 (GUJ.) 3. CIT VS. BHARAT G.PATEL (2014) 43 TAXMANN.COM 90 (GUJ.) 4.2. IN THE CASE OF PANORAMA BUILDERS (P.)LTD.(SUPR A), THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- 13. IN THIS TAX APPEAL, WE FIND THAT ON 6.10.2004 THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED HIS RETURN UNDER SECTION 139. THE NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 143(2) COULD BE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, [AS PER THE PROVISIONS AS EXISTED IN THE YEAR 2004, ITA NOS.127 TO 139/AHD/201 2 SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B. PATHAN AND 12 ORS. VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - 2005 AND 2006] WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH RETURN IS FURNISHED, THAT IS TO SAY ON OR BEFORE 31.10.2005. BUT THE NOTICE UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 6.7.2006, AFTER ABO UT 20 MONTHS. UNDER PROVISO TO UNDER SECTION 143(2) THE NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF STATUTORY PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH RETURN WAS FILED, THEREFORE, IF THE NOTICE ITSELF HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED WITHIN STATUTORY TIME LIMIT OF 12 MONTHS, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DEEMED SERVICE OF THE NOTICE WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD F IXED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, TO SUCH A CASE, SECTI ON 292BB WILL NOT COME TO AID OF THE REVENUE, EVEN IF WE TAKE A VIEW THAT SEC TION 292BB WOULD APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY RESORT CANNOT BE TAKEN BY THE REVEN UE TO SECTION 292BB TO GIVE A GO-BYE TO MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WITHIN THE STATUTORY FIXED BY THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. 14. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T SECTION 292BB DOES NOT APPLY TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, NEITHER IT CURES THE D EFECT OR ENLARGES STATUTORY PERIOD WHERE A MANDATORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2 ) OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED WITHIN LIMITATION FIXED UNDER THE ACT. IN ABSENCE OF ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF T HE ACT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH RETURN WA S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH REGARD TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1.4.1997 TO 25.7.2002 ON TH E BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED ON 6.7.2006 UNDER SECTION 143(2), AFTER ABOUT 20 MONTHS, WAS TIME BARRED AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF SUCH NOT ICE IS NULL AND VOID. 15. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND THA T ANY OF THE THREE QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL RAISES ANY SUB STANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. THIS APPEAL IS DEVOID OF ANY MERITS AND IS ACCORDIN GLY DISMISSED. 4.3. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT G.PATEL (SUPRA), VIDE ORDER DATED 28/01/2014 RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ASST.CIT VS. HOTEL BLU E MOON (2010) 321 ITR 362 :: 188 TAXMAN 113, TO THE SAME VIEW THERE A RE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE OF NON-I SSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.127 TO 139/AHD/201 2 SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B. PATHAN AND 12 ORS. VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - 6. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL MR. VARAN PATEL AN D HAVING PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFI RMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 7. ADMITTED FACTS ARE THAT FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WI THIN THE TIME PERMITTED. THOUGH SUCH NOTICE WAS ISSUED, IT WAS DELAYED BY OV ER SIX MONTHS. IT IS WELL SETTLED BY THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA) THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WOULD BE M ANDATORY EVEN IN CASE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS HELD THAT ISSU ANCE OF NOTICE IS MANDATORY, IT IS THE NOTICE WHICH IS THE VERY FOUND ATION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS HELD THAT NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 143 WOULD BE NECESSARY TO CHECK THE RETURN IF THE ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 158BC. NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 143(2) SHOULD BE ISSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FILING O F THE BLOCK RETURN. OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 143(2) CANNOT BE A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE, AND THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE CANNOT BE DISP ENSED WITH. IT WAS FURTHER HELD AND OBSERVED AS UNDER:- '16. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE EXPRESSION ' SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY' INDICATES THAT IT IS NOT EXPECTED TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142, SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 14 3 STRICTLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE, SINCE WE DO N OT SEE ANY REASON TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE AND MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION 'SO FAR AS I MAY BE APPLY'. IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REPUDIATION OF THE RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION / 158BC(A) PROCEEDS TO M AKE AN ENQUIRY, HE HAS NECESSARILY TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142, SUBSECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143.' 8. IN VIEW OF THIS POSITION, FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME MUST VITIATE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE HOWEVER, HARPED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING ISSUED NOTICE THOUGH BELATEDLY AND THE ASSESSEE HAVING PAR TICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NOS.127 TO 139/AHD/201 2 SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B. PATHAN AND 12 ORS. VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - 9. HE WOULD DRAW OUR ATTENTION TO SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT TO CONTEND THAT IN VIEW OF THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDU RAL REQUIREMENT AND IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, NO INVALIDITY TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE ATTACH ED. 10. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA) HAS HE LD THAT EVEN IN CASE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT NOTICE IS MANDATORY AND THE VERY N OTICE GIVES JURISDICTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING S UCH NOTICE HAS ALSO BEEN SPECIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILING TO ISSUE NOTICE WITHIN TIME LIMIT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED OR T HAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED LATER ON WOULD NOT CURE THE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT. WHAT WOULD BE THE POSITION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE A CT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR US TO OPINE SINCE SUCH PROVISION WAS INTRODUCED ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2008, AND THEREFORE, WAS NOT IN THE STATUTE BOOK DURING THE P ERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE RESULT, TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT THE CASE OF SUKHINI P.M ODI PERTAINING TO AY 1996-97 WHICH IS PRIOR TO AMENDMENT IN SECTIO N 292BB OF THE ACT. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON GROUND NO. 1. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN IF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT DOES NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE ISSUE THAT SECT ION 292BB PROCURES PROCEDURAL ASPECTS. IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) IS MANDATORY FOR VALID REQUIREMENT TO AS SUME JURISDICTION TO FRAME A PROPER ASSESSMENT. IN THE ADMITTED POSITIO N OF NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THESE CASES, IT CANNOT BE ASSU MED THAT AO INVESTED HIMSELF THAT VALID JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESS MENT. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN UNEQUIVOCALLY ECHOED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANORAMA BUILDERS (P.) LTD.(SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY ITA NOS.127 TO 139/AHD/201 2 SHRI KAIRFULHUSAN B. PATHAN AND 12 ORS. VS.ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 10 - FOLLOWING THEM, IT IS HELD THAT THE NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT, DIVEST THE AO FROM FRAMING THE IMPUGNED REASSE SSMENT IN THE CASES OF ALL THE ASSESSEES, CONSEQUENTLY THEY ARE QUASHED . SINCE I HAVE HELD THE REASSESSMENT UNDER APPEALS TO BE BAD IN LAW, TH ERE IS NO NECESSITY TO ADJUDICATE OTHER ISSUES ON THE MERITS. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THIRTEEN APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09 / 12 /2016 SD/- .. ( ) ( R.P. TOLANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 09/ 12 /2016 %.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#'$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. *+*,- . / CONCERNED CIT 4. . ( & ) / THE CIT(A)-II, BARODA 5. /01 (,- , & &,- , &+ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, )/ ( //TRUE COPY// \ / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD