Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, Noida V. ITO-Ward-1(3), Chandigarh

ITA 215/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4075 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 01-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK KHANNA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Period of limitation; Procedural lapse; Block assessment; Capital receipt; Time period of passing order; Reason to believe; CHAPTER XIVB
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 292BB; 143(2); 158BC; 15

Judgement Text

, , ' IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI R.L NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 215/CHD/2021 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, NOIDA VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), CHANDIGARH ./PAN NO: ABZPB8783D / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING /ASSESSEE BY : MS BHAVYA BANSAL GOYAL, CA / REVENUE BY : SH. ASHOK KHANNA, ADDL. CIT % /DATE OF HEARING : 05.10.2021 % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.10.2021 / ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2021 OF LD. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L:- 1. THAT THE CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT A PPRECIATING THAT THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3) , CHANDIGARH, IS ILLEGAL AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. THAT THE CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE MANDATORY NOTICE U/S 143(2)(I) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT WAS NOT SERVED ON THE APPELLANT VALIDLY AND ALSO NO T UPTO ITA NO. 215-C-2021- SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, NOIDA 2 31.5.2003, HENCE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VOID AB INITIO. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE AO'S ACTION OF TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,76,051/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AS PART OF SAL ARY AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IGNORING THAT THE SAME TO B E CAPITAL RECEIPT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING AO'S ACT OF HOLDING THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION FOR L OSS OF EMPLOYMENT IN PURSUANCE OF A COURT ORDER TANTAMOUNT TO PART OF SALARY, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE IS NO RELATIONSH IP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD FOR W HICH THE COMPENSATION / PECUNIARY BENEFITS WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND PARTICULARLY WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS R EAPPOINTED WITH 50% OF THE PECUNIARY BENEFITS. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING AO'S ACTION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15 TO 17 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T ARE APPLICABLE TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,76,051/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT THE CAPITAL RECEIPT FOR THE CESSATION OF SOURCE OF INCOME. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS THAT NO INTEREST U/S 234A WAS LEVIABLE AS THE RETURN OF INC OME WAS FILED WITHIN THE DUE DATE. 7. ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER AND ARE SUBJECT TO FURTHER SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATION, EL ABORATION A FURNISHING OF EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS ETC AT THE TIME OF HEARING IN WRITING OR ORALLY. 8. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUN DS OR TAKE ANY OTHER GROUND WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE TRIBUNA L. 3. GROUND NOS. 1, 7 AND 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY COMMENTS ON OUR PART. 4. VIDE GROUND NO.2, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT INITIATED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITHOUT ITA NO. 215-C-2021- SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, NOIDA 3 SERVICE OF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2)(I) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT ASSESSEE FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.7.2002 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 3,45,710/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 27.1.2003. THEREAFTER, TH E CASE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY AND THE NOTICE U/S 143(2)(I) O F THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30.5.2003 WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE SAME DATE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED THE ASSESSM ENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 11,67,301/- BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,76, 051/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE @ 50% OF THE WAGES IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORD ER BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, FROM THE DATE OF RELINQUISHMENT TILL THE DATE OF RE- APPOINTMENT WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE A CAPITAL RECEI PT AS THERE WAS NO EMPLOYMENT DURING THAT PERIOD, ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 45,540/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESS IONAL RECEIPT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2) (I) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INCORPORATED IN PARA 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WH ICH READ AS UNDER:- 2. GROUND NO.2:- IN THIS GROUND THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT THE NO TICE U/S 143(2)(I) WAS NOT SERVED ON HIM VALIDLY, HENCE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VOID AB-INITIO. 1. OBSERVATION OF THE A.O .:-THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY OBSERVATION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE AO. ITA NO. 215-C-2021- SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, NOIDA 4 2. SUBMISSION OF THE A.R.:- DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED FOLLOWING ONLINE WRITTEN SU BMISSION ON THIS ISSUE, THROUGH E-FILING PORTAL DATED 20.03.2021. 1) AS GATHERED FROM THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2)(I) WAS ISSUED DT. 30.5.2003. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE 1TR ON 25.07.2002. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 143(2)(I) THEN IN FORCE, THIS NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE A SSESSEE ON OR BEFORE 31.5.2003. THE NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE BUT AT HER RESIDENCE BY HER MAID ON 1 ST JUNE, 2003, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF S. 143(2)(I) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: '[(2) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED UNDER SECTI ON 139, OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SE CTION 142, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, (I) WHERE HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY CLAIM O F LOSS, EXEMPTION, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF MADE IN THE RETURN I S INADMISSIBLE, SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE SPECIFYING PARTICULA RS OF SUCH CLAIM OF LOSS, EXEMPTION, DEDUCTION, ALLOWANCE OR RELIEF AND REQUIRE HIM, ON A DATE TO BE SPECIFIED THEREIN TO PRODUCE, OR CA JSE TO BE PRODUCED, ANY EVIDENCE OR PARTICULARS SPECIFIED THE REIN OR ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY, IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM: [PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER THIS CLAUSE SHALL HE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2003:]' THE PROVISO TO ABOVE SECTION HAS CURTAILED THE LIMI TATION TO SERVE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2)(I) TO 31.5.2003. HOWEVER, THE NOTICE ISS UED ON 30.5.2003 WAS SENT AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BY HIS MAID ON JUNE 1,2003. REGARDING THIS INVALID AND LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE, ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE LD. AO WHICH THE LD. AO FAILED TO DISPOSE OFF. FURTHER, THE BENEFIT OF PRESUMPTION U/S 292BB IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE LD. AO SINCE THE SAME HAS BEEN INSERTED W.E. F. AY 2008-09 AND THIS AMENDMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN HELD TO BE NOT RETROSPEC TIVE IN NATURE. 2) IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WHEN THE STATUTORILY MANDATORY NOTICE U/S 143(2)(I) HAD NOT BEEN VALIDLY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND HAS N OT BEEN SERVED IN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, WE RELY UPON THE RAT IO OF JUDGEMENT IN- A. CIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON 321ITR 362(SC) 'SEARCH AND SEIZUREBLOCK ASSESSMENTNOTICE UNDER S . 143(2) CLAUSE (B) OFS. 158BC ENABLES THE AO TO COMPLETE TH E ASSESSMENT BY FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE LIKE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 142/143(2) IT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ACCEPTING THE RETURN AS PROVID ED UNDER S.L43(L)(A)HOWEVER; NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE IT IS NECESSARY TO CHECK THE RETURNWHERE THE BLOCK RETURN CONFORMS TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME INFERRED BY THE AUTHORITIES, THERE ITA NO. 215-C-2021- SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, NOIDA 5 IS NO REASON WHY THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD ISSUE NOTIC E UNDER S. 143(2) IF AN ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COMPLETED UNDER S. 143(3) R/W S. 158BC, NOTICE UNDER S, 143(2)SHOULD BE ISSUED WITHIN ONE Y EAR FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF BLOCK RETURNOMISSION ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) CANNOT BE A MERE PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE FURTHER} S. 158BC(B) SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO SOME OF THE PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS UNDER CHAPTER XIVBIF THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO EXCLUDE THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV] IT WO ULD HAVE INDICATED THATTHEREFORE> IF THE AO, FOR ANY REASON, REPUDIAT ES THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER S.L58BC(A), HE MUST NECESSARILY ISSUE NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) WITHI N THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN THE PROVISO TO S. 143(2)WHEN S. 158B C(B) SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO APPLICABILITY OFS. 143(2), ITS PROVISO CA NNOT BE EXCLUDED THERE IS NO REASON TO RESTRICT THE SCOPE AND MEANIN G OF THE EXPRESSION 'SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY' FURTHER, S. 158BH PROVIDE S FOR APPLICATION OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH SPECIFICAL LY INCLUDES S. 142 AND SUB SS.(2) AND (3) OFS. 143.' B. ANIL KISANLAL MARDA VS ITO (ITAT PUNE) XTANO. 1763/PUN/2013 DTD,.01/07/2019 'SINCE NO EFFORT WAS MADE BY AO TO SERVE ANOTHER NO TICE U/S. 143(2) BEFORE THE DEADLINE AFTER RETURNING FROM POS TAL AUTHORITIES THE ORIGINAL NOTICE U/S 143(2) THUS, THE JURISDICTI ONAL CONDITION OF 'SERVICE' OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) AND NOT ITS 'ISSUE' WAS NOT SATISFIED AND ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN ABSENCE OF A VALID JURISDICTION WAS QUASHED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ABOVE GROUND OF THIS APPELLANT MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED.' 7. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THIS GROUND BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2. THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED VALIDLY. FIRST OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE NOTICE WAS SERVED ON 01-JUNE-2003 WHEREAS THE LAST DATE OF SER VICE OF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIMITED SCRUTINY WAS 30-05-2003 AS PER PROVISION INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT 2003. THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER MENTIONS THAT THE NOTICE U/S 14392) WAS SERVED ON 3 0-05-2003. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT T HE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS SERVED ON 01-JUNE-2003 AND NOT ON 30-05-2003, T HEREFORE THIS OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ITA NO. 215-C-2021- SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, NOIDA 6 3. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO STRESSED THAT THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY HIS MAID AND NOT BY HIM. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THIS SUBMISSION, THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLA NT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 4. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HOTEL BLUE MOON 321 ITR 362 (SC). HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON, NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED AT ALL THEREFORE THE DECISION IN THIS CASE I S NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISIO N OF THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE IN CASE OF ANIL KISANLAL MARDA (ITA NO 1763/PU N/2013). HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AND IT WAS NOT THUS SERVED. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE ALSO DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CON SIDERATION. 6. GROUND NO 2 OF THE APPELLANT IS THUS DISMISSED. 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 143(2)(I) OF THE ACT, AS APPLI CABLE TO THE ASSESSEES CASE AT THE RELEVANT TIME, NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED ON OR BEFORE IST OF JUNE 2003, HOWEVER, NO N OTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE A SSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT VIDE APPLICATION DATED 18 .8.2021, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER B OOK AND THE REPLY WAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE SAID APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT W ITHIN 30 DAYS, HOWEVER, TILL DATE NO REPLY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE NOTICE WAS NOT S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BUT ON HIS MAID ON 01.06.2003 THAT TOO AFT ER EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD I.E. 31.5.2003. THEREFORE, WITHOUT SERVING THE NOTICE U/S ITA NO. 215-C-2021- SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, NOIDA 7 143(2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT F RAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT VALID. RELIANCE WAS PLACE D ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT & ANOTHER VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON REPORTED AT 321 ITR 362(SC). 10. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ST RONGLY SUPPORTED THE SAID ORDER. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PR ESENT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR SERVING NOTI CE U/S 143(2) (I) OF THE ACT WAS UP TO 31.5.2003 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER I SSUED THE NOTICE ON 30.5.2003. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 30.5.2003. ON THE CONTRARY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS NEVER S ERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS RECEIVED BY HIS MAID WHO WAS NOT AUTHORI ZED TO RECEIVE THE SAME ON IST JUNE, 2003. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER R.T.I. ACT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. I.T.O., WARD 1(3) OF THE INCOME TAX DE PARTMENT, CHANDIGARH ON 18.8.2021 (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION), WHICH READS AS UNDER:- SPEED -POST 18.08.2021 INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD 1(3), AAYAKAR BHAVVAN. ITA NO. 215-C-2021- SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, NOIDA 8 SECTOR 17E.CHANDIGARH 160017 SUB: APPLICATION SEEKING INFORMATION IN M\ OWN CAST FOR TIN- ASST. YEAR 2002-03 UNDER THE RIGHTS TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 (PAN. ABZPB8783D) SIR, WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE, I. THE UNDERSIGNED APP LICANT, IN MY OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR SEEKS CERTIFIED PH OTOCOPY OF - NOTICE ISSUED BY YOUR GOODSELF U/S 143(2)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 30.05.2003 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2002-03 ALONGWI TH THE PROOF OF DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. NECESSARY FEE OF RS. 10/- FOR THE SAME IS ENCLOSED B) WAY OF A POSTAL ORDER NO. 51F 958019. FURTHER REQUIRED COPYI NG FEES SHALL BE DEPOSITED ON RECEIPT OF THE INTIMATION OF THE AM OUNT FOR THE PURPOSE FROM YOUR GOOD OFFICE. THANKING YOU IN ANTICIPATION FOR AN EARLY ACTION. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL) APPLICANT ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID APPLICATION, IT IS CLAIMED THAT NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS SOME FORCE IN THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICE WAS NEVER SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN TH E LIMITATION PERIOD. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN SPECIFIED PERIOD I. E ON OR BEFORE THE IST DAY OF JUNE 2003, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE ABSENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON THE ASSE SSEE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD PROVIDED U/S 143(2)(I) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT ITA NO. 215-C-2021- SH. PARVEEN KUMAR BANSAL, NOIDA 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS NOT VALID. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS QUASHED. 13. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT SERVING THE STATUTORY NOT ICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD, NO FINDINGS ARE BEING GIVEN ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 05.10.2021 ) SD/- SD/- (R.L.NEGI) ( N.K. SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 05.10.2021 . . ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 2 / CIT 4. 2 ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. - 7 , % 7 , 9 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR