Mr.Parveez Rahim Khan, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Bangalore

ITA 1273/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0242 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPNA DAS JT
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.1274 & 1273/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 MR. PARVEEZ RAHIM KHAN, NO.202A, 2 ND FLOOR, 136, CEARS PLAZA, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: AAQPR 1823C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWAPNA DAS, JT. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 28.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.06.2016 O R D E R THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), LTU, BANGALORE DATED 28. 05.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. ITA NO. 1274/B/14 IS AN APPEAL FILED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A O, WHEREAS THE OTHER APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.1273/B/14 IS AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT]. ITA NOS.1274 & 1273/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT OR DER IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAS NOT SERV ED ANY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I N THE ABSENCE OF VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS NOT ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT UPON T HE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVITE D OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADMISSION O F THE AO, THE FACT REGARDING THE NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DISPUTED. 5. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS). 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, A SP ECIFIC QUERY WAS PUT TO THE LD. DR WITH REGARD TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT UPON THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE LD. DR COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO SERVICE OF THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) UPON TH E ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER W ITH REGARD TO NON- SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ALSO N OT DISPUTED BY THE LD. DR. IN LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WHERE A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN ITA NOS.1274 & 1273/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 3 SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THE AO COULD NOT ASSUME J URISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. THEREFORE, WE QUASH THE ASSESSMENT. 7. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT IS ANNULLED, THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS INITIATED CONSEQUENT TO THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NO LEGS TO STAND. THEREFORE, WE ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND DELETE THE PENALTY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 30 TH JUNE, 2016. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE