Prem Prakash Garg, Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2594/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6861 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJEEV BAJAJ
• Keywords: Procedural lapse
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

1 BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC 3 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2594 /DEL/201 5 AY: 20 03 - 04 SH. PRAM PRAKASH GARG VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 9 N 41 A, GALI NO.4 NEW DELHI VIJAY VIHAR, UTTAM NAGAR DELHI 110 059 PAN: AAOPG 2169 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. S ANJEEV BAJAJ , CA RESPONDENT BY : SH. RAJESH KUMAR, SR.D.R. ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 16 , NEW DELHI DATED 27/01/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 0 4. 2. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS I FIND THAT IN THIS CASE , MANDATORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WAS NOT SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT , A) THAT A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSE E, DESPITE ASKING FOR THE SAME V IDE LETTER DATED 4/01/2010. AND B ) THAT MANDATORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT . 2 2.1. AS THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS I AM CONVINCED WITH THE FACTUAL POSITION STATED BY THE ASSESSEE, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RE CORD, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A S BAD IN LAW. THE HON BLE DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S PAVAN GUPTA (2009) 318 ITR 0322 (DELHI) HEL D THAT ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY AND NOT MERELY A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY. 2.2. RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME I QUASH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER BOTH ON THE GROUND THAT THE MANDATORY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN SERVED AND ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT, THE REASONS FOR REOPENING WERE NOT FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING A COPY OF THE SAME. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 5 T H JANUARY, 2017. S D / - (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 2 5 T H JANUARY, 2017 *MANGA 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR