ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s Ankur Exports, New Delhi

ITSSA 19/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2532 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-09-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI JAIN
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Period of limitation; Validity of assessment; Procedural lapse; Assessment record
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH A NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 19/DEL./2011 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1996 TO 06.03.2003 A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 33(1), VS. ANKUR EXPORTS, NEW DELHI. 211/3, PADA NAGAR, NEW DELHI (PAN:AAFFA8941B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. RAVI JAIN, CIT/DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2016 DATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 . 11 .2016 ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - XXVI, NEW DELHI DATED 27.12.2010 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 06.03.2003 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO THE CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE POINT REGARDING ISSUE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN ONLY IN THE APPELLATE STAGE BY RAISING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO THE CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE IT (SS) A NO. 19/DEL./2011 2 MADE WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND IT IS NOT AN INVALIDATING ILLEGALITY BUT A CURABLE PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE I.T. ACT 1961, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPLETING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 158BD OF THE I.T. ACT.' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS F AILED TO TAKE INTO THE CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE SECTION 292BB IS A PROCEDURAL PROVISION WHICH HAS RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION AND SECTION 292BB HAS BEEN HELD TO BE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND APPLICABLE TO ALL CASES BY THE ALLAHABAD BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO, 1338 & 1339 OF 1997 AND ITA NO. 667 OF 1998.' 4. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO THE CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON IS NOT APPLICABLE SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB WERE NOT INVOKED BY THE REVENUE AND ALSO NOT ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THAT CASE.' 2. ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATE TO ONLY ONE ISSUE RELATING TO SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S. 143 (2). THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S. GIAN CHAND RAMJI DAS LUDHIANA. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. ANKUR EXPORTS WERE SEIZED. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 15, NEW DELHI AF TER RECORDING SATISFACTION NOTED U/S. 158BD FOR INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF M/S. ANKUR EXPORTS. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 158BD WAS ISSUED ON 05.05.2005 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED FOR FILING OF RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF NOTICE. ANOTHER REMINDER WAS ALSO ISSUED U/S. 158BD ON 03.06.2005. THE RETURN U/S. 158BD WAS FILED ON 21.10.2005 BY IT (SS) A NO. 19/DEL./2011 3 SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH ON BEHALF OF ANKUR EXPORTS IN THE STATED STATUS OF PROPRIETOR. HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE STATUS OF M/S. ANKUR EXPORTS AS THAT OF AOP WITH SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH BEING A MEMBER OF AOP. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AT RS.36,22,250/ - U/S. 158BD/144 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.05.2007. HOWEVER THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ON 13.04.2007 WHICH WAS TIME BARRED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ON ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON 22.11.2010. THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPOT ARE AS UNDER : 3.4 ON THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAVING BEEN ISSUED AT THE EXPIRY OF 12 MONTHS F ROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN U/S 158BD THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 22.11.2010 HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: ' (I). NOTICE U/S I58BD OF THE IT ACT, 196 1 WAS ISSUED ON 05.05.2005 ASKING FOR FILING OF RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 06.03.2003 WITHIN 15 DAYS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. (II). ANOTHER REMINDER NOTICE U/S I58BD OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 03.06.2005. ( II I). HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSEE HAS FILED THE BLOCK PERIOD RETURN ON 21.10.2005 WHICH IS MUCH BEYOND THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT IN THE NOTICE U/S I58BD. THEREFORE THE BLOCK PERIOD RETURN FILED ON 21.10.2005 IS NOT IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S. I58BD AND IS CONSEQUENTLY NOT A VOLUNT ARY RETURN. IT (SS) A NO. 19/DEL./2011 4 (IV). FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS A LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 23.04.2007 ACKNOWLEDGING SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 26.04.2007. (V). HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN THE FOLLOWING ON THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 15.05.2007 IN HIS OWN HAND AND UNDER HIS SIGNATURE DATED 17.05.2007 (COPY ENCLOSED HEREWITH) PLEASE REFER TO MY L ETTER DATED 24.03.2007 ADDRESSED TO SH. S.L KANOJIA ACIT. P L . LET ME KNOW THE DOCUMENTS R EQUIRED OR SEND QUESTIONNAIRE .REGARDS SD / - CHANDRA PRAKASH 17.05.2007', WHICH RAISES A PRESUMPTION THAT POSSIBLY A NOTICE U/S 143(2) PREVIOUS TO 13.4.2007 HAS BEEN ISSUED. (VI). HOWEVER, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER A NOTICE U/S 143(2) PRIOR TO 13.04.2007 HAS BEEN ISSUED. HOWEVER, IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO RECAPITULATE THAT THE STANDARD OF PROOF IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS IS 'PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY' AND NOT 'BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT'. (VII). WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED FOR KIND CONSIDERATION OF YOUR HONOUR THAT ASSESSMENT CON BE PASSED WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U / S 143(2) AND THAT IT IS NOT AN INVALIDATING ILLEGALITY BUT A CURABLE PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY IN V IEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292 BB OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPLETING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 158BD OF THE IT ACT 1961 AND HAS RAISED THE POINT REGARDING ISS UE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 12 MO N THS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN ONLY IN THE APPELLATE STAGE AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SECTION 292 BB IS PROCEDURAL PROVISION WHICH HAS RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION AND IN VIEW OF THE FA CT THAT SECTION 292 BB HAS BEEN HELD TO BE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND APPLICABLE TO ALL CASES BY THE ALLAHABAD BENCH OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 1338 & /339 OF 1997 AND ITA NO. 667 OF 1998. (VIII). WITHOUT PREJUDICE IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED FOR KIND CONSIDERATIO N THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN A CI T VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON IS NOT APPLICABLE SINCE THE PROVIS I ONS OF SECTION 292 BB WERE NOT INVOKED BY THE REVENUE AND ALSO NOT ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THAT CASE.' IT (SS) A NO. 19/DEL./2011 5 3. THE LEARNED CIT( A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DECIDED THE LEGAL ISSUE ONLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 4. THE LE ARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, AS PER SECTION 292BB, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS LEGALLY VALID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 143(2) BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. 5. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AN APPLICATION OF ASSESSEE SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH DATED 08.09.2016 IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD STATING THAT DUE TO HIS SERIOUS AILMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A P OSITION TO MOVE. HE, THEREFORE, HAS PRAYED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL IN HIS ABSENCE ON MERITS. 6. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MADE A GOOD ORDER WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS UNDER : IT (SS) A NO. 19/DEL./2011 6 3.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF SH. CHANDRA PRAKASH, AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE FACTS ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, SH. CHANDRA PRAKASH HIMSELF HAS FILED THE APPEAL AND HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE OF THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER DATED 30.5.2010. HE IS NEITHER AN INCOME TAX PRACTITIONER NOR A CA/ADVOCATE. THEREFORE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS, HE HAS DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE FACTS AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS COMPREHENDED BY HIM. 3.8 FROM THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OTHER DETAILS ON RECORD, THE FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE: - THE FIRST NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS DATED 05.05.200 5 REQUIRING THE APPELLANT TO FILE THE RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.04.1996 TO 06.03,2003 WITHIN 15 DAYS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO WHICH THE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY. ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED ON 3.6.2005, TO WHICH THE APPELLANT COMPLIED ONLY ON 21 .10.2005. THEREFORE AS THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE THE RETURN IN COMPLIANCE TO THE FIRST NOTICE DATED 5.05.2005, NOR WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED AS PER 2ND 158BD NOTICE DATED 3.6.05, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SECOND REMAND REPORT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RETUR N FILED ON 21.10.2005 SHOULD NOT BE EQUATED WITH A VOLUNTARY RETURN. PRESUMABLY BY THIS THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER POSSIBLY MEANS THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEFAULT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WITHIN 12 MONTH S OF FILING OF THE RETURN. IN MY VIEW, THIS IS NOT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW. IN CASE OF NON - COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 158BD CALLING FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD RETURN, THE LAW PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN PROCEED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 EVEN IF THE RETURN IS NOT FILED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY AFTER THE DELAYED FILING OF THE RETURN. THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S 144, THERE IS NO MENTION WHETHER THE PRESCRIBED PROCE DURE FOR FRAMING AN ASSESSMENT U/S 144 WAS FOLLOWED OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE FACT OF SH. CHANDRA PRAKASH ATTENDING THE HEARINGS AND SUBMITTING DETAILS. SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH HAS PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF HIS VARIOUS LETTERS DATED 21ST , 28TH AND 29 TH MARCH, 2007 CONTAINING THE EXPLANATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BOTH THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE PROVIDED COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 15.05.2007 WHEREIN SH. CHANDRA PRAKASH HA S STATED ON THE NOTICE ITSELF THAT THE DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRED MAY BE COMMUNICATED/INFORMATION SOUGHT BY WAY OF QUESTIONNAIRE IT (SS) A NO. 19/DEL./2011 7 MAY BE SENT. THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN CONCLUDED ON THE BASIS OF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 1 3.04.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAS STATED THAT AN EARLIER NOTICE U/S 143(2) MAY HAVE BEEN ISSUED AS 'THERE IS A LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 23.04.2007 ACKNOWLEDGING SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 26.4.20 07'. AS PER ASSESSMENT RECORD THE EARLIEST NOTICE U/S 143(2) AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS DATED 13.4.07. IT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ACIT, CIR. 33(1) FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 26.4.07. IT HAS BEEN DISPATCHED THROUGH SPEED POST ON 16.4.07 VIDE RLB 119, COUNTER NO.2, OP - CODE - RC, I.P. ESTATE, POST OFFICE. THERE IS NO OTHER NOTICE U/S 143(2) PRIOR TO 13.4.07 ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) REFERRED TO BY SH. CHANDRA PRAKASH IS NON E OTHER THAN THAT WHICH IS DATED 13.4.2007. 4. IN VIEW OF THE FACT S AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS DISCUSSED IN PRECEDING PARAS, IT IS HELD THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ONLY ON 13.04.2007 WHICH IS WELL BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN U/S 158BD DURING WHICH THE STATUTORY NO TICE COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON 118 TAXMAN 113 IS THUS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. 4.1 REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 292BB AS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT IS HELD THAT THE H ON'BLE DELHI ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S NASEMAN FARMS PVT. LTD. VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 970/DEL/2010 DATED 14.09.10 HAS CONSIDERED AT LENGTH THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 292BB WHETHER IT HAS PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OR RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS HELD THAT THE - 'FIRST OF ALL, SECTION 292 68 OF THE ACT WAS BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2008. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONS HIGH COURT IN 'CIT V. MANI KAKAR' 18 DTR (DEL) 145, HAS HELD, INTER ALIA, THAT SECTION 292 88 OF T HE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 WHICH IS ALSO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE US. 'THEN, THE DELHI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN 'KUBER TOBACCO PRODUCTS P. LTD. V. DOT 117 ITD 273 (DEL) (SB) HAS HELD INTER ALIA, THAT WHEN AN AMENDMENT, T HOUGH RELATING TO A PROCEDURAL PROVISION, CREATES A NEW DISABILITY OR OBLIGATION IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS ALREADY COMPLETED, SUCH PROCEDURAL PROVISION CANNOT BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY; THAT SECTION 292 BB OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE EFFECTIVE BY THE LEGISL ATURE FROM L4.2008; THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ENACTMENT TO SHOW THAT SECTION 292 BB HAS RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION; THAT SECTION IT (SS) A NO. 19/DEL./2011 8 292 BB TAKES AWAY THE RIGHT OF AN ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE AVAILABILITY OF A PARTICULAR ACTION OF THE DEPTT . OF MAKING ASSESSMEN T OR REASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF AN INVALID ISSUANCE/SERVICE OF NOTICE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IF SUCH CONTENTION WAS NEVER RAISED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; AND THAT THEREFORE, SECTION 292 88 CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO HAVE RETROSPECTIVE OPERAT ION AND IT H AS TO BE APPLIED PROSPECTIVELY. 5. IN VIEW OF THE PROSPECTIVE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 292BB AS IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S RELIANCE ON SECTION 292BB TO CONFER LEGITIMACY TO THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 13.04.2007 IS MISPLACE D IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. AS THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 13.04.2007 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD/144 HAS BEEN FRAMED HAS BEEN ISSUED/SERVED ON THE APPELLANT BEYOND A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE BLOCK PERIOD R ETURN ON 21.10.2005 IT IS HELD THAT THE SAID NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS TIME BARRED AND IS ACCORDINGLY HELD TO BE INVALID AB INITIO BY LIMITATION. ALL RESULTANT PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE SAID NOTICE INCLUDING THE FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.05.2007 A RE ACCORDINGLY ANNULLED. 7. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED FIRST NOTICE U/S. 158BD FOR FILING OF RETURN ON 21.10.2005 WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF NOTICE. REMINDER WAS ALSO ISSUED ON 03.06.2005, BUT RETURN WAS FILED ON 21.10.2005 WHICH IS MUCH BEYOND THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT GIVEN IN THE NOTICE U/S. 158BD. HOWEVER, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S. 143 (2) ON 13.04.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ISSUED THE NOTICE WITHIN TIME FRAME FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IN THIS REGARD WHICH WAS DONE MUCH BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE IT (SS) A NO. 19/DEL./2011 9 AO HAS TAKEN SHELTER OF SECTION 292BB IN THE REMAND REP ORT WHICH IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.E.F. 01.04.2008 APPLICABLE PROSPECTIVELY AND NOT RETROSPECTIVELY. THE CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 30.05.2007. MOREOVER, THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 292BB INTRODUCED IN THE STATUTE RELATES TO SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND NOT THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, AS IS DONE IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN A NNULLING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.11.2016 SD/ - SD/ - ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 16.11.2016 *AKS/ - COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI