Rakyan's Fine Jewellery (Formally known as M/s. Varun Gems), New Delhi V. JCIT, Range- 33, New Delhi

ITA 7178/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Rakyan's Fine Jewellery, formerly known as M/s. Varun Gems, appealing against the order of the CIT(A)-31, New Delhi, which pertained to the assessment year 2007-08. The primary contention was the non-service of a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the reassessment proceedings. The assessee argued that the reassessment was invalid as the notice was not served properly, and the CIT(A)'s reliance on section 292BB was misplaced since it applies to assessment years 2008-09 onwards. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting the legal provision cited by the CIT(A) did not apply to the relevant assessment year, leading to the quashing of the reassessment order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131286 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd Vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148; 292BB; 143(2)

Judgement Text

Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE Shri C.M. Garg, Judicial Member ITA No. 7178/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) Rakyan’s Fine Jewellery (formerly known as M/s. Varun Gems, M-31, M Block Main Market, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi Vs. JCIT, Range-33, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAAFV2804P Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Mathur, CA Revenue by: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21/08/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/08/2023 O R D E R 1. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-31, New Delhi dated 25.06.2019 for AY 2007-08. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in the law as much as on the facts of the case by not appreciating the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer did not assume the jurisdiction to complete the reassessment proceedings as the notice u/sec. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 16.09.2014 have not been served on the appellant during the course of the reassessment proceedings and that the notice that have been actually served had been served even before the appellant had made making compliance to the notice u/sec. 148 of the Act and thus, the assessment completed by the learned Assessing Officer u/sec 147/143(3) of the Act is liable to be quashed.” 3. I have heard arguments of both the sides. The ld Assessee’s Representative (AR) submitted that no notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) has been served on the assessee as the ld CIT(A) noted in para 4.1.3. that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was received un-served but derived contention of assessee by stating that section 292BB of the Act is applicable thus legal contention of assessee is not tenable. The ld AR placing ITA No. 7178/Del/2019 Rakyan’s Fine Jewellery Page | 2 reliance on the order of Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT 310 ITR 300 (Del) (SC) submitted that provision of section 292BB of the Act is applicable for AY 2008-09 onwards and the same is not applicable to present past Assessment Year 2007-08. 4. On the other hand the ld Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not raise any objection regarding non service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act during assessment proceedings. Therefore, provision of section 292BB is applicable in favour of the Revenue and thus, legal contention of assessee may kindly be dismissed. 5. On careful consideration of the above submission, I note that the Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products Vs. DCIT (supra) held that provision of section 292BB of the Act is applicable from AY 2008-09 onwards hence, the same cannot be applied to the present case of AY 2007-08. 6. Since the ld CIT(A) in para 4.1.3 noted the fact of non-service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on the assessee and even if the assessee did not raise any objection to non-service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before the AO, the legal contention cannot be dismissed on the strength of provision of section 292BB of the Act as the same has no application to present AY 2007-10. As per decision of Hon’ble in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd Vs. DCIT 341 ITR 247 (Del) non-service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act makes assessment order invalid. Accordingly, ground No. 1 of assessee is allowed and consequently, impugned reassessment order u/s 147/143(3) of the Act is quashed being bad in law and invalid. 7. No arguments on other grounds, hence, in absence of any submission I don’t deem it proper to decide other grounds of appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/08/2023. -Sd/- (C. M. GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 25/08/2023 ITA No. 7178/Del/2019 Rakyan’s Fine Jewellery Page | 3 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi