M/s. Gitsons Engineering Co., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 796/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4657 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 796/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. GITSONS ENGINEERING CO., 60, DEVELOPED PLOTS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PERUNGUDI, CHENNAI-600 096. V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III(4), CHENNAI. (PAN: AAAFG5613K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI V. S. JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEA LS)-VIII, CHENNAI IN ITA NO 62/09-10 DATED 26-02-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08. 2. SHRI V. S. JAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL REPRESE NTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NO. 796/MDS/2010 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-10-2007. IT W AS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) WHIC H WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 27-08-2009 AND AS THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WA S SERVED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR PLACED BEFORE US COPY O F THE ORDER SHEET NOTING WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEES C ASE HAD BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS PR EPARED AND PUT UP ON 18-09- 2008. HE ALSO PLACED BEFORE US THE COPY OF THE NOT ICE ISSUED U/S. 143(2). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE SECOND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) W AS SERVED ON 27-08-2009. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 5. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE NOTICE DATED 18-09-2008. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE NOTICE STATED TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON 18-09-2008 SHOWS THAT NOTICE IS DATED 17-09-2008 AND THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY FOR THE SAME FOR DESPATCH IS NOT AVAILABLE. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY RECORD TO SHOW TH AT THE SAID NOTICE WAS DESPATCHED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC. 143(2) CATEGORICALLY SATE THAT THE NOTICE IS TO BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE SERVICE OF NOTICE DATED 17-09-2008/18-09-2008 IS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE I.T.A. NO. 796/MDS/2010 3 ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY IT IS TO BE HELD THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ISSUED IS A NOTICE DATED 27-08-2009. AS THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) IS SERVED ONLY ON 27-08-2009, THE SAME IS FOUND TO BE BEYOND THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 143(2). CONSEQUENTLY, THE NOTICE IS HELD TO BE INVALID AND THEREFORE THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT STANDS ANNULLED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22/7/20 11. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 ND JULY, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE