Nitesh Shetty , Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income TAX Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1777/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8955 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R PREMI
• Assessee Lawyers: S V RAVISHANKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Period of limitation; Deemed dividend; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 2(22)(e); 234B; 143(2); 73; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 NITESH SHETTY, NO.25A, IMPERIAL COURT, 2 ND FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. PAN ALMPS 4258 B. VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.V RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. R PREMI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 14-10-2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-01-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AG AINST ORDER DATED 10/07/2017 PASSED BY LD.CIT(A)-6, BANGALORE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THE ORDER OF CIT (A) 6 IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) - 6 FAILED TO APPRECIATE EVEN AFTER T HE CATEGORICAL FINDING BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE A MOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. FROM NITESH ESTATES LTD. AND NITESH ESTATES LTD. HAD SHOWN THIS AMOUNT AS ADVANCES TO NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD . IN BALANCE SHEET IN THE REGISTER MAINTAINED U/S 311 OF THE PAGE 2 OF 11 ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 COMPANIES ACT, 1956, THE AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED A S DEEMED DIVIDENDS IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 3. THE CIT (A) - 6 FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE APPELLA NT HAD NOT RECEIVED THE MONEY EITHER FROM NITESH ESTATES LTD. NOR FROM NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD TO COME WITH IN THE P URVIEW OF DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. THE CIT(A) - 6 FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE C AN BE NO FURTHER DEEMING PROVISION TO ASSESS U/S 2(22)(E) IN THE HAND OF THE SHARE HOLDER FOR THE MONEY RECEIVED BY ONE COMPANY FROM ANOTHER COMPANY. 5. THE CIT(A) - 6 ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING ON MERIT BUT SIMPLY HELD AS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANTS CAS E. 6. THE CIT(A) - 6 FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF THE M/S NIPL THE RECIPIENT OF THE MONEY BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED THE H'BLE TRIBUNAL BASE D ON THE SAME JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RELIED ON THE AP PELLANT HAD HELD THAT THE ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) WAS DELETED AND CONFIRMED BY THE H'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 7. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT H UMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE REN DERED, THE APPELLANT MAY BE AWARDED COST IN PROSECUTING TH E APPEAL AND ALSO ORDER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITU N FEES AS PART OF THE COSTS FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT DECISION. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: 2. ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR OF M/S.NITISH ESTATE PVT. LTD AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES. HE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 14/01/2008 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.14,22,91,120/-. ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM SAL ARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINESS INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES AS HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY LD.AO. IT IS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY LD .AO THAT ASSESSEE IS A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER OF M/S NITESH ESTAT ES PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN M/S NITESH I NFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, LD.A O NOTED THAT PAGE 3 OF 11 ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 ASSESSEE ADVANCED SUM OF RS.1,18,00,000/-, TO NITES H INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. LD.AO ALSO NOTED THAT A SUM OF RS.73 LAKH WAS REPAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ITSE LF. AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.45 LAKH WAS SHOWN AS CURRENT L IABILITY BY NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD. IT WAS OBSERVED BY L D.AO THAT, AS ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN BOTH THE COMPA NIES, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT STANDS AT TRACTED AND THE SAID LOAN AMOUNT WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED IN THE H ANDS OF ASSESSEE. SINCE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDER ATION THE ABOVE TRANSACTION WHILE FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME , LD.AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT I NCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 D ATED 12/03/2014 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON ASSESSEE. 4. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, REPRESE NTATIVE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE LD.AO AND FILED REQUISITE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR. LD.AO BASED ON SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSE SSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 08/08/2014, AND DOCUMENTS FILED IN RES PECT OF M/S.NITESH ESTATES PVT.LTD., AND M/S.NITESH INFRAST RUCTURE PVT. LTD., CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT, PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED. LD.AO WAS ALSO OF TH E OPINION THAT ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING 54.85% EQUITY SHARES IN NITISH ESTATES PVT. LTD., AND 98% EQUITY SHARES IN M/S.NITISH INFRASTRU CTURE PVT.LTD., RESPECTIVELY. THE LD.AO THUS, DISALLOWED SUM OF RS.1,18,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED BY ADDITION, ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEF ORE LD.CIT(A). LD.CIT(A) ON MERITS OBSERVED AS UNDER: PAGE 4 OF 11 ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 8. THE SOLITARY ISSUE TO BE ADJUDICATED IN THE INS TANT APPEAL CONCERNS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11800000/- BY AD BY INVOKING SE CTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 9. PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT APPELLA NT IS A MAJOR SHARE HOLDER IN NITESH ESTATES PVT LTD NEPL IN SHORT WHIC H HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD NIPL IN S HORT. IT WAS NOTED BY AO THAT NEPL HAD ADVANCED A SUM OF RS. 11800000/- D URING FY 2006- 07 TO NIPL. IT WAS NOTED THAT RS. 73 IAKH WAS REPAI D DURING FY 2006-07 & BALANCE OF RS. 45 LAKH WAS SHOWN AS CURRENT LIH N IPL. FURTHER APPELLANT DID NOT TAKE THESE TRANSACTIONS INTO CONS IDERATION WHILE FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE THE CASE WAS RE-OPE NED U/S 148 SINCE THERE WAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 10. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT APPELLANT HOLDS 54.5% & 98 % AS EQUITY SHARES IN NEPL & NIPL RESPECTIVELY. IT MAY FURTHER BE NOTE D THAT WEF AY 1998 - 99, IF ANY PAYMENT BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR A LOAN IS M ADE BY A CLOSELY HELD COMPANY TO A SHAREHOLDER WHO IS A BENEFICIAL O WNER OF SHARES HOLDING NOT LESS THAN 1 % VOTING POWER OR TO ANY CO NCERN IN WHICH SUCH A SHAREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER IN WHICH HE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST THEN SUCH ADVANCE, PAYMENT OR LOAN WILL BE TREATED AS 'DEEMED DIVIDEND' U/S 2( 22) (E) OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF SUCH SHARE HOLDER. 11. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, AR OF APPELLANT R ELIED ON HON'BLE ITAT BANGALORE'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF SR. RAJEEV CHAN DRASHEKAR IN ITA NO 144IBANG/2013, AY 2008-09 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE BENCH BY RELYING ON HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN THE CASE OF HOTE L HILLTOP 2117 CTR 527 (RAJ) HELD THAT LOAN OR ADVANCE TO A NON SHAREH OLDER CANNOT BE TAXED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. THE AR ALSO RELIED ON HON BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF SARVA EQUITY P VT LTD IN ITA NO 322/212/01W ITA NOS 323/2012 & 324/2012 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT 'ONLY WHERE LOAN IS ADVANCED BY THE COMPANY TO THE REGISTERED SHAREHOLDER AND THE OTHER CONDITIONS SET OUT IN, SE CTION 2(22)(E) ARE SATISFIED, THAT AMOUNT OF LOAN WOULD BE LIABLE TO B E REGARDED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS SECTION' 12. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THAT APPELLANT HOLDS 54.5% & 98 % AS EQUITY SHARES IN NEPL & NIPL RESPECTIVELY. THESE SHOW THAT APPELL ANT IS A MAJOR SHARE HOLDER IN NITESH ESTATES PVT LTD WHICH HAS, A SUBST ANTIAL INTEREST IN NITESH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT NEPL HAD ADVANCED A SUM OF RS.11,800000/- DURING FY 2006-07 TO NIPL. THEREFORE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT APPELLANT IS A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER I N A COMPANY WHICH HAD ADVANCED SUMS TO ANOTHER COMPANY WHEREIN THE SA ID COMPANY HAS MAJOR STAKES. THEREFORE THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITA T BANGALORE IN THE CITED CASE OF SR. RAJEEV CHANDRASHEKAR IN ITA NO 14 4/BANG/2013, AY 2008-09 AND HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 'S.DECI SION IN THE CASE OF SARVA EQUITY PVT LTD IN ITA NO 322/212/01W ITA NOS 323/2012 & 324/2012 ARE NOT APPLICABLE. RELIANCE PLACED BY AR OF APPELLANT IN THE CITED JUDICIAL DECISIONS IS FOUND TO BE UNTENABLE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PAGE 5 OF 11 ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 FACTS, AO'S ACTION OF INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 2 (22(E) IS FOUND TO BE AS PER LAW. AND HENCE THE SAME IS UPHELD, SUSTAINED AND CONFIRMED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 7. AT THE OUTSET, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, ASSESSEE HA S RAISED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS VIDE APPLICATION DATED 31/10/2018 ON MERITS AS UNDER: 1. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDITION OF THE DEEMED D IVIDEND CAN BE MADE ON THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS, WHICH SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE PROFITS AS APPEARING IN THE FINANCIALS IN THE YEAR PRIOR TO TH E YEAR, IN WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND NOT CONCEDING THAT THERE W AS ANY INSTANCE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE D EEMED DIVIDEND IF ANY WAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF THE ACCUMULAT ED PROFITS OF RS. 69,04,318/-, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY , DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ANY OR ALL OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING TH E APPEAL. 4. IN THE VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND APPROPRIATE RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 8. VIDE APPLICATION DATED 08/10/2019 ASSESSEE CHALL ENGES PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 TO BE BAD IN LAW FOR THE REASON THAT NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS BEYOND T HE PERIOD OF LIMITATION BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID-AB-INITIO AS THE MANDATORY COND ITIONS TO INVOKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 148 DID NOT EXIST ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 148 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT IS ABSENT OR HAVING NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED ON AN INVALI D ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION DO NOT SURVIVE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. 4. THE REASON RECORDED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFF ICER, MAY UTMOST BE CONSIDERED AS REASON TO SUSPECT AND UNDER NO STRETC H OF IMAGINATION THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS REASON TO BELIEVE WHICH IS A BASIC INGREDIENT FOR A VALID ASSUMPTION OF RE-ASSESSMENT UNDER THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. PAGE 6 OF 11 ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 5. THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS BARRED BY LIMITATION ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED I N LAW IN CHARGING THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE A CT AND FURTHER THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AN D 234C OF THE ACT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW SINCE THE RATE, METHOD OF CA LCULATION, QUANTUM IS NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, SUBSTITUTE, CHANGE AND DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 8. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE. 9. LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT, FOR ADJUDICATING ADDITIONA L GROUNDS NO NEW FACTS NEEDS TO BE LOOKED INTO, AS IT EMERGES FROM ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE THUS RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 AND DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF GUNDATHUR THIMMAPPA & SONS VS CIT REPORTED IN 70 ITR 70, PRAYED FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL . 10. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR OBJECTED FOR GROUNDS TO BE ADMITTED FOR THE REASON THAT, THESE WERE NOT RAISED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SHE SUBMITTED THAT LEGAL ISSUE R AISED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. 11. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 12. WE NOTE THAT LEGAL ISSUE RAISED VIDE APPLICATIO N DATED 18/10/2019 GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE. 13. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY LD.AR THAT, ASSESSEE W AS NOT ISSUED NOTICE U/S.143(2) WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMIT ATION, AND THEREFORE CONSEQUENTIAL REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED I S BAD IN LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE U/S143(2) WAS ISSUED TO AS SESSEE ON PAGE 7 OF 11 ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 11/03/2015. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON PAGE 19 OF PAPER BOOK, WHERE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS PLACED. LD.AR SUBMIT TED THAT ON 25/03/2014, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN IN LIEU OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, AND TIME PERIOD TO ISSUE NO TICE U/S.143(2) EXPIRES ON 30/09/2014, BEING 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FILED. 14. HE THUS PRAYED FOR QUASHING OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER AS THE SAME IS PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION. LD.AR PLAC ED RELIANCE ON DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ACIT VS.ASHED PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD. REPORTED IN (2015) 62 TAXMANN.COM 340 15. ON THE CONTRARY, LDR.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED FOR THE 1 ST TIME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, AND THEREFORE NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMI TTED FOR THE MATTER TO BE REMANDED TO AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR VERI FICATION. LD. SENIOR DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ERROR COULD BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT. 16. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN LIGHT OF RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 17. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS REGARDING BELATED ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). 18. ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 06/03/2014, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON 12/03 /2014. FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS APPARENT THAT, VIDE LETTER DATED 21/03/2014 FILED WITH REVENUE ON 25/03/2014, ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT ORIGINAL RETURN FILED IS TO BE TREAT ED AS RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE SAID LETT ER IS PLACED AT PAGE 10 OF PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. PAGE 8 OF 11 ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 IN THE PRESENT FACTS, ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE UN DER SECTION 143(2) ON 11/03/2015, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 19 OF PAPER BOOK. FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE COPY OF SAID LE TTER IS SCANNED REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW AS UNDER: LATER ON AT P. 362, THE COURT HELD AS UNDER: THERE IS NO REASON OR LOGIC WHY ALL THE INCIDENTS A TTACHING UNDER THE EARLIER LEGISLATIONS IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE NOT CLEA RLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE LATER ONE, SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO THE LATER LEGI SLATION AS WELL.' AND CONCLUDED BY SAYING AS UNDER: IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD GIVE F ULL AND LITERAL EFFECT TO THE LANGUAGE OF S. 3(3) AND HOLD THAT IT HAS THE EF FECT NOT ONLY OF ATTRACTING THE PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF THE 1944 AC T BUT ALSO ALL ITS OTHER PROVISIONS INCLUDING THOSE CONTAINING THE DEFINITIO N. 19. ADMITTEDLY, NOTICE UNDER 143(2) OF THE ACT, ISS UED ON 11/03/2015 IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE RETURN FILED P URSUANT TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. ON BARE READING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2), IT IS CLEAR THAT, TIME PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS, 6 MONTHS FRO M END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED. 20. IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE THE TIME PERIO D RECKONS FROM 01/04/2014, SINCE ASSESSEE INTIMATED REVENUE VIDE L ETTER DATED 21/03/2014 FILED WITH REVENUE ON 25/3/2014 TO CONSI DER THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED, IN LIEU OF NOTICE ISSUED UND ER SECTION 148. NO DOUBT THAT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 11 /03/2015 IS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE BEYOND PERIOD OF LIMITATION. NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) GIVES JURISDICTION TO ASSESSING OFFI CER TO PROCEED WITH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT FACTS, NOTICE ISSUED BEYOND PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS INVALID AND THEREFORE THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY LD.AO IN VIEW OF SUCH NOTICE IS BAD IN LAW. PAGE 9 OF 11 ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 21. REVENUE ARGUED ON APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS O F SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIONS THAT SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT COULD ONLY IN SELECT LD.AO FROM THE PROO F OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. IT DOES NOT IN ANYWAY INSULATE LD.AO IN A S ITUATION WHERE THE ISSUANCE ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW AND BEYOND THE PE RIOD OF LIMITATION. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION R ENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL (2019) (108 TAXMANN.COM 183)(SC). WE THE REFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.SR.DR. 22. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS ARE INVALID FOR THE REASON THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 3(2) WAS NOT ISSUED TO ASSESSEE IN THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY THE PROVISIONS. ACCORDINGLY, REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 1 9/03/2015 PASSED BY LD.AO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AND SET-ASID E. ASSESSEE THUS SUCCEEDS ON LEGAL ISSUE RAISED IN ADD ITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 23. AS WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED, ISSUES RAISED BY ASSESSEE ON MERITS BECOMES ACADEMI C AT THE SAME IS NOT ADJUDICATED. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JAN, 2021. SD/- SD/- (B. R. BASKARAN) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 11 TH JAN, 2021. /VMS/ PAGE 10 OF 11 ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE. PAGE 11 OF 11 ITA NO.1777/BANG/2017 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON ON DRAGON SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR -1-2021 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER -1-2021 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. -1-2021 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS -1-2021 SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON -1-2021 SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOAING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE -1-2021 SR.PS 8. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON -- SR.PS 9. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK -1-2021 SR.PS 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 11. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 12. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 13. DRAFT DICTATION SHEETS ARE ATTACHED NO SR.PS