DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR V. SMT. ANUPAMA DHURIA , ABOHAR

ITA 87/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3441 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP C HAUHAN LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SURINDER MAHAJAN LD
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 143(2); 132; 144; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.81, 82, 83, 84 & 85(ASR)/2019 ASST. YEARS:2009-10, 2010-11, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AMRITSAR VS. SH. KAVINDER KUMAR S/O OM PARKASH FAZILKA [PAN:ADYPR 0767L] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.86, 87, 88, 89 & 90(A SR)/2019 ASST. YEARS:2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AMRITSAR VS. SMT. ANUPMA DHURIA NEAR MAIN POST OFFICE STREET 15-B, ABOHAR [PAN:AARPD 0468J ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.92, 93, 94 & 95(AS R)/2019 ASST. YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AMRITSAR VS. SH. RAJESH DHURIA NEAR MAIN POST OFFICE STREET 15-B, ABOHAR [PAN:AARPD 0469K ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SANDEEP C HAUHAN (LD. CIT-DR) RESPONDENT BY: SH. SURINDER MAHA JAN (LD. CA) DATE OF HEARING: 26.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.10.2019 ORDER ITA N0S.81 TO 90 & 92 TO 95 /ASR/2019 DCIT VS. KAVINDER KUMAR & O RS, FAZILKA 2 PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM: ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DETAILED BELOW, IMPUGNED HEREIN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA U/S 250(6) OF THE ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN ALL APPEALS, T HE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY A LL APPEALS HAVE BEEN TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY FOR ADJUDICATION AND THE FA CTS OF ITA NO.81/2019 HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND RESU LT OF THE SAME SHOULD ALSO APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO OTHER APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. SL. NO. APPEAL NUMBER & ASSESSMENT YEAR DATE OF CIT(A) ORDER OFFICE OF CIT(A) 1 ITA NO.81/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2009-10) 20/11/2018 CIT(A) -5, LUDHIANA 2. ITA NO.82/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2010-11) 20/11/2018 CIT(A )-5, LUDHIANA 3. ITA NO.83/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2013-14) 20/11/2018 CIT(A )-5, LUDHIANA 4. ITA NO.84/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) 20/11/2018 CIT(A )-5, LUDHIANA 5. ITA NO.85/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) 20/11/2018 CIT(A )-5, LUDHIANA 6. ITA NO.86/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2009-10) 12/11/2018 CIT(A )-5, LUDHIANA 7. ITA NO.87/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2011-12) 12/11/2018 CIT(A )-5, LUDHIANA 8. ITA NO.88/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2013-14) 12/11/2018 CIT(A )-5, LUDHIANA 9. ITA NO.89/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) 12/11/2018 CIT(A )-5, LUDHIANA 10. ITA NO.90/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) 12/11/2018 CIT( A)-5, LUDHIANA 11. ITA NO.92/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2009-10) 12/11/2018 CIT( A)-5, LUDHIANA 12. ITA NO.93/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2011-12) 12/11/2018 CIT( A)-5, LUDHIANA 13. ITA NO.94/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2013-14) 12/11/2018 CIT( A)-5, LUDHIANA 14. ITA NO.95/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2014-15) 12/11/2018 CIT( A)-5, LUDHIANA ITA N0S.81 TO 90 & 92 TO 95 /ASR/2019 DCIT VS. KAVINDER KUMAR & O RS, FAZILKA 3 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPE RATION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 24.07.2014 AT THE BUSINESS/RESIDENTIAL PREMISES BELONGING TO NATURE GROUP, ABHOR, FAZILKA. ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT WER E INITIATED, HOWEVER, LATER ON THE SAME HAVE BEEN DROPPED ON DATE D 07.11.2016 ON REVEALING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SE ARCH WARRANT U/S 132 WAS NOT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION U/S 132. HOWEVER BECAUSE DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CERTAIN DOCUME NTS AND DIARIES WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SH . SATPAL THATHAI, IN WHICH SOME OF THE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO T HE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND THEREFORE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WERE INI TIATED AFTER RECORDING THE SATISFACTION AND AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER, NOTI CE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED ON 07.11.2016 WHICH WAS SERVED BY REQUIRI NG THE ATTENDANCE OF ASSESSEE ON 17.11.2016. ON 17.11.2016 ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,3 3,400/- IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C. ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 153C R.W. SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN FIRST APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS INCL UDING INVOCATION OF JURISDICTION BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH AFFIRMED THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO WHILE ADJ UDICATING GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER AS PER ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO. 2 HELD THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C R.W. SEC.143 AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW BY HOLDIN G AS UNDER: 3.2 GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS REGARDING FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AS PER THE GROUND OF APPEAL, IT IS CONTENDED BY THE ITA N0S.81 TO 90 & 92 TO 95 /ASR/2019 DCIT VS. KAVINDER KUMAR & O RS, FAZILKA 4 APPELLANT THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW SINCE NEITHER NOTICE U/S.153C WAS RECEIVED NOR ANY RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C WAS FILED ASS ESSEE. IT IS ALSO CONTENDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF RETURN, THE A SSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FRAMED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AS AGA INST THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C R.W.S.143(3). THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS MENTIONED THAT AFTER SERVICE O F NOTICE U/S 153C, ISSUED ON 07.11.2016, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN ON 17.11.2016 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C. ON THE O THER HAND, THE AR HAS CLAIMED THAT NEITHER ANY NOTICE U/ S 153C WAS RECEIVED NOR ANY RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U /S 153C WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO ARGUED BY THE AR THAT NO SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OF SH. SATPAL THATAI, THE 'PERSON SEARCHED' THAT MONEY, BU LLION, JEWELLERY ETC. BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND WITH THE 'PERSON SEARCHED'. IT IS ARGUED BY THE AR THAT NO R ETURN OF INCOME STATED TO BE FILED ON 17.11.2016 (AS MENTION ED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER), HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISS UED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE AR, THE ASSESS MENT HAS BEEN FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF NON-EST RETURN. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS NOT STATED ANYTHING ABOUT THE FI LING OF RETURN, HOWEVER IT IS MENTIONED THAT NOTICE U/S 143 (2) WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE SPEED-POS T. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED VIDE NO. 330 DATED 23.11.20.16 AN D COPY OF THE SAME IS AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. HOWEVER, THE REPORT OF THE AO, SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS, IS SILENT ABOUT THE RETURN MENTIONED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17.11.2016. THE ASSESSMENT RECORD SHOWS THAT RETURN S WERE ITA N0S.81 TO 90 & 92 TO 95 /ASR/2019 DCIT VS. KAVINDER KUMAR & O RS, FAZILKA 5 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139 AND AFTER THE ISSUE O F INITIAL NOTICE U/S 153A, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT TH E SAME MAY BE TREATED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A ALSO. HOWEVER, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 153A WERE DROPPED ON 07.11.2016 AND THEREAFTER PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WERE INITIATED. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS NOT BEE N ABLE TO REBUT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME STATED TO HAVE BEEN FILED ON 17.11.2016, HAS EVER BEEN FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THERE IS MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF T HE AR THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID RETURN, NO NOTICE U/S 143 (2) CAN BE ISSUED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED U/ S 153C R.W.S. 143(3). IT IS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE AR TH AT IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID RETURN, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRE D TO BE FRAMED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. A PERUS AL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS IN THIS CASE SHOWS THAT ALTHOUGH THE AO, AFTER DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A, RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C AND ISSUED NOTICE DATED 07.11.2016 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE A R, HOWEVER NO RETURN U/S 153C WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E NOR ANY LETTER WAS SUBMITTED STATING THAT THE EARLIER R ETURN MAY BE TREATED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C. THEREFOR E IN THE ABSENCE OF THE VALID RETURN, NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) C OULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) IS NOT VALID AS PER LAW. IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID RETURN, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C, THE ASSESSMENT WAS TO BE FRAMED AS PER THE PROCEDURE PR ESCRIBED U/S 144, BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE AO I N THIS CASE. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THIS ISSUE HAVE ME RITS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2016 IS INVALID BE ING VOID- AB-INITIO. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON THI S ISSUE THAT ITA N0S.81 TO 90 & 92 TO 95 /ASR/2019 DCIT VS. KAVINDER KUMAR & O RS, FAZILKA 6 THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) IS ILL EGAL AND BAD IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE, THE LD. D R SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE SUFFERS FROM PERVERSITY, IMPROPRIETY AND ILLEGALITY, AS THE SAME I S CONTRARY TO LAW. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. A R SUPPORTED THE IMPUG NED ORDER. 5. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFU L CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. AS PER REVENUE CASE, PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A HAVE BEEN INITIA TED ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132(1) OF THE A CT, HOWEVER LATERON, ON REALIZING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT SEARCH WARRANT U/S 132 WAS NOT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION U/S 132, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 153A OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN DROPPED ON DATED 07.11 .2016, HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND DIARIES WERE FOU ND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SH. SATPAL THATHAI, IN WH ICH SOME OF THE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND, THE P ROCEEDINGS U/S 153C WERE INITIATED AFTER RECORDING THE SATISFACTIO N NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED ON 07.11.2016 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE ON DATED 17.11.2016 HAD FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,33,400/-. PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT FINALLY CULMINATED INTO FRAMING T HE ASSESSMENT ITA N0S.81 TO 90 & 92 TO 95 /ASR/2019 DCIT VS. KAVINDER KUMAR & O RS, FAZILKA 7 U/S 153C R.W. SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ON APPEAL, THE SAME STANDS QUASHED BY THE LD CIT(A). 5.1 THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT RAISED THE ISSUES THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MISDIRECTED HIMSELF IN HOLDING THAT SINCE THERE W AS NO RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C, NOTICE UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED, WHICH VITIATED THE A SSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C, PARTICULARLY WHEN ASSUMPTION OF JURISDI CTION U/S 153C WAS HELD TO BE VALID AFTER PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A W AS DROPPED. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/S 153C R.W.S 144 INSTEAD OF SECTION 153 R.W.S 143(3) EVEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE ALL ALONG PARTICIPAT ED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5.2 LET US TO SEE AS TO WHETHER ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE ON THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE DEPAR TMENT. 5.3 FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT REFLECTS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OBSERVED THAT A PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORD SHOWS THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED VIDE NO.330 DATED 23.11.2016 AND THE COPY OF THE SAME IS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. HOWEVER, THE AO'S REPORT SUBMITT ED BY AO DURING THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS, IS SILENT ABOUT THE RETU RN MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON 17.11.2016. THE ASSESSMENT RECORD SHOWS THAT RETURN WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139 AND AFTER THE ISSUE OF INITIAL NOT ICE U/S 153A THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE TREATED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A ALSO. HOWEVER, THE PROCEEDINGS INIT IATED U/S 153A WERE DROPPED ON 07.11.2016 AND THEREAFTER PROCEEDIN GS U/S 153C WERE INITIATED. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT ITA N0S.81 TO 90 & 92 TO 95 /ASR/2019 DCIT VS. KAVINDER KUMAR & O RS, FAZILKA 8 NO RETURN OF INCOME STATED TO HAVE FILED ON 17.11.2 016 HAS EVER BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THERE IS MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID RETURN, NO NOTICE U/ S 143(2) CAN BE ISSUED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED U/S 153C R.W. SEC. 143(3). THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT IS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE AR THAT IN ABSENCE OF VALID RETURN, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FRAMED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS IN THIS CASE SHOWS THAT ALTHOUGH THE AO, AF TER DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A, RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR INI TIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C AND ISSUED NOTICE DATED 07.11. 2016 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE AR, HOWEVER, NO RETURN U/S 153C WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY LETTER WAS SUBMITTED STATING THAT THE EARLIER RETURN MAY BE TREATED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C THERE FORE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE VALID RETURN, NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) COULD HAV E BEEN ISSUED AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C R. W. S EC. 143(3) IS NOT VALID AS PER LAW. IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID RETURN, I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C, THE ASSESSMENT WAS TO BE FRAMED AS PER TH E PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED U/S 144, BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE AO IN THIS CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE AR ON THIS ISSUE HAVE MERITS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2016 IS INVALID BEING VOID AB INITIO . THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C R.W.SEC.143(3) IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 5.3 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO THE PA SSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153(C) R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF RETURN. THOUGH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153 C WERE INITIATED AFTER RECORDING THE SATISFACTION OF THE UNDE RSIGNED (ASSESSING OFFICER) AND NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED ON 7.11.20 16, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME ON 17.11.2016 BY DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,33,400/-, HO WEVER, IN ITA N0S.81 TO 90 & 92 TO 95 /ASR/2019 DCIT VS. KAVINDER KUMAR & O RS, FAZILKA 9 REMAND REPORT FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FAILED TO REBUT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME AS OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER STATED TO BE FIL ED ON 17.11.2016, HAS EVER BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE EFF ECT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A RETURN, NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS WARR ANTED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C R.W.S 143(3) CAN ENTAIL QUASH ING. ONCE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NEITHER ANY RETURN OF INCOME HA S EVER BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HIS EARLIER RETURN MAY BE TREATED IN RESP ONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACCT IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND AGAIN ST THE SPIRIT OF LAW. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE OBSERVATIO N OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID RETU RN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS TO BE FR AMED U/S 144 OF THE ACT BUT NOT OTHERWISE, AS ALSO HELD BY C UTTACK BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EASTERN ENGINEERING VENTURE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITA NO.325/CTK/2017 DECIDED ON MAY 2, 20 19) [2019] 177 ITD 0427. AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT IS NOT RES-INTEGRA THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF RETURN, ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE FRA MED U/S 144 OF THE ACT ONLY, WHICH IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT B EEN FRAMED AND THEREFORE ENTAILED QUASHING. 5.4 ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID ANALYZATION, IN OUR CONSIDER VIEW THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY PERVERSI TY, ILLEGALITY OR IMPROPRIETY, HENCE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERE NCE AND LIABLE TO BE AFFIRMED. CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. ITA N0S.81 TO 90 & 92 TO 95 /ASR/2019 DCIT VS. KAVINDER KUMAR & O RS, FAZILKA 10 6. IN THE RESULT, CONSEQUENTLY, ALL APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERA TION FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/1 0/2019. SD/- SD/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:29/10/2019. /PK/ PS. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANTS 2. THE RESPONDENTS 3. THE CIT 4. THEN CIT(APPEALS) 5. SR DR, I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER