PARTH ALAMINIUM LTD, Ahmedabad V. THE DCIT CENT CIR .1(4), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 376/AHD/2002

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7898 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2002
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA CITD R
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Revised return
• Section: 142(1); 132

Judgement Text

, , . .. . . .. . , , , , ! ! ! ! ' '' '# ## # ' ' ' '. .. .$ #$ $ #$ $ #$ $ #$ , %& ' %& ' %& ' %& ' % ! % ! % ! % ! IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : C BENCH : AHMEDABAD BEFORE HONBLE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, V.P. & HONBLE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.) # ## # . IT(SS)A NO. 376 / AHD./2002 ()- BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1988 TO 08.12.1998 PARTH ALUMINIUM LTD., ABAD -VS- DCIT, CEN TRAL CIRCLE-1(4), ABAD ( +, /APPELLANT) ( -.+, /RESPONDENT ) (PAN : ) +, / 0 % / APPELLANT BY : MS. URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. -.+, / 0 % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.GUPTA, CIT,D.R. 1 / 2 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 01/12/2011 4$( / 23& /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/12/2011 %5 %5 %5 %5 / ORDER PER SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M. : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, AHME DABAD IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-I CC.1[4]/97/2000-01 DATED 22.10.2002 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1988 TO 08.12.1998 PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 R .W.S.158BC OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY (THE ASSESSEE HENCEFORTH ) HAS RAISED NINE GROUNDS IN AN ILLUSTRATIVE AND NARRATIVE MANNE R. GROUND NO.9 BEING GENERAL, IT DOES NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS, IT(SS)A NO. 376-AHD-02 2 THE ISSUES RAISED ARE REFORMULATED, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY, IN A CONCISE MANNER, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN: (1) TREATING THE RETURN OF BLOCK PERIOD AS NON-ES T; (2) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.51,000/- BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT; - CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.13 LAKHS BEING UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT; - CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2.80 LAKHS BEING U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF BOUNDARY WALL AND BORE- WELL; (3) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.13.4 LAKHS BEING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SANTEJ LAND; - CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.58.55 LAKHS BEING UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS TO M/S. MARUTI CONSTRUCTION. 3. THE ASSESSEES NATURE OF BUSINESS IS MANUFACTURI NG AND TRADING OF UTENSILS AND RELATED PRODUCTS. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH STARTE D ON 8.12.1998 AND CONCLUDED IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1999 AND, ACCOR DING TO THE REVENUE, SEVERAL INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE UNEAR THED. IN COMPLIANCE TO A NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT DATED 3 1.5.2000, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A RETURN OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME F OR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON 13.11.2000, ADMITTING NIL INCOME. AFTER DUE C ONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS REPLIES AND EXPLANATION FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FOR THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDED I N HIS IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER DISPUTE, THE AO MADE THE FOL LOWING ADDITIONS UNDER DISTINCTIVE CAPTIONS, NAMELY: IT(SS)A NO. 376-AHD-02 3 (1)TRANSACTION OF LAND AT SANTEJ/KALOL RS. 51,000/- (2) UN-EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SANTEJ/KALOL LAND TR ANSACTION RS.13,00,000/- (3) UN-EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF BOUNDARY WALL AND BORE-WELL IN THE SAID LAN D RS. 2,80,000/- (4)UN-DISCLOSED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.13,40,000/- (5) UNDISCLOSED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF FACTORY LAND AT SILVASSA RS.58,55,000/- 4. THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THOSE ISSUES, AMONG OT HERS, WITH THE LD. CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS, THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND W HICH READS AS UNDER: I. THE LD. DCIT HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WITHOUT THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IN MAKING AN I NVALID ASSESSMENT; II. THE LD. DCIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE PROVI SIONS OF LAW CON- TAINED IN S.158BC(B) WHICH ARE MANDATORY AN D HAS THUS ASSU- MED THE POWERS OF ASSESSMENT IN EXCESS OF H IS AUTHORITY; & III. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED DCIT OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME . 4.1. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BEING A LEGAL ONE. 4.2. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ORIGINAL APPEAL MEMO, THE LD. CIT (A) MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN ALONG WITH TH E ORIGINAL APPEAL MEMO, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON IT(SS)A NO. 376-AHD-02 4 HEARING DATED 11.10.02 STATED THAT THE APPELLANT DO ES NOT WISH TO PRESS THOSE GROUNDS AND WANTS THE ADDITIONA L GROUND TO BE DECIDED. IN VIEW OF THIS ASSERTION, ALL THE SIX GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL MEMO ARE DISMISSED AND ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED . 4.3. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ELAB ORATE CONTENTIONS PUT- FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE COUPLED WITH VARIOUS RULINGS OF THE JUDICIARY AS WELL AS EXTENSIVELY QUOTING THE PROVISIONS OF S. 158BC O F THE ACT, RECORDED HIS FINDINGS WHICH ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: (ON PAGE 10) TO APPRECIATE THE POSITION CORREC TLY, I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE CASE RECORDS OF T HE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. I FIND THAT AFTER THE SEARCH IN APPELLA NTS CASE, A NOTICE U/S 158BC OF I.T. ACT 1961 DATED 31.5.2000 WAS SERV ED ON THE APPELLANT ON 2.6.2000 WHEREBY IT WAS CALLED UPON TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WITHIN 45 DAYS OF RECEI PT OF THE NOTICE. THIS PERIOD OF 45 DAYS IS THE MAXIMUM PERI OD ALLOWABLE FOR FILING OF RETURN AS PER CLAUSE A(II) OF S.158BC OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN I.T. ACT WHICH PROVIDES FO R FILING OF RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 158BC AFTER A PERIOD OF 4 5 DAYS. THERE IS ALSO NO PROVISION FOR FILING OF A REVISED RETURN . THUS, THE APPELLANT HAD TO FILE A RETURN BY 17.7.2000, IF IT WANTED TO FILE A RETURN WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID RET URN WITHIN THE MEANING OF S.158BC OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, NO RETURN WAS FILED BY DUE DATE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 11.10.2000 ASKING THE APPELLANT AS TO WHY PROSECUTION U/S 276CCC OF I.T. ACT, 1961 SHOULD NOT BE INITIATE FOR NON-FILING OF RETURN. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT DATED 7.11.2000 WAS SERVED ON 10.11.2000 BY WHICH T HE APPELLANT WAS INTIMATED THAT NO RETURN WAS FILED BY IT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT AND, HENCE, THE APPE LLANT WAS ASKED TO FURNISH VARIOUS DETAILS AND EXPLANATIONS B Y THAT NOTICE SO THAT ASSESSMENT COULD BE COMPLETED. THE APPELLA NT FINALLY FILED ITS RETURN ON 13.11.2000 I.E., MUCH AFTER THE LIMIT OF 45 DAYS LAID DOWN IN THE ACT AND AFTER THE SERVICE OF NOTIC E U/S 142(1) SEEKING EXPLANATIONS AND DETAILS FROM THE APPELLANT . THUS, THIS RETURN CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A VALID RETURN WITHIN T HE MEANING OF S. 158BC OF THE ACT AS IT WAS FILED MUCH BEYOND THE TI ME IT(SS)A NO. 376-AHD-02 5 PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUE. IF A RETURN IS FILED AFTER LAPSE OF LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING OF RETURN PROVIDED IN THE ACT, THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS NON EST RETURN AS HELD IN TH E FOLLOWING CASES: 1. CIT V. S RAMAN CHETTIAR 55 ITR 630 (SC) 2. AUTO & METAL ENGINEERS V. UNION OF INDIA 111 ITR 161 (PUNJ) THUS, THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS NON EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. REQUIREMENT OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) FLO WS FROM FILING OF A VALID RETURN. IF THE RETURN IS NOT A VALID ON E, THERE IS NO NECESSITY IN LAW TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 143(2) AS PE R THE RATIO OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GIRISHCHANDRA HARIDA S 196 ITR 833 (KER). THIS WAS A CASE WHERE THE ISSUE RELATED TO ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 143(3), WITHOUT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AFTER A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED. THE HONBLE COUR T HELD THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED AFTER FILING OF REVISE D RETURN. THIS MEANS THAT ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS ESSENTIAL ONLY WHEN A VALID RETURN IS FILED. IN NONE OF THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT INCLUDING THE CASE OF MARDIA GROUP DECIDE D BY ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS TO BE ISSUED EVEN IF A RETURN IS INVALID. THUS, THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE PRESEN T CASE. AS THE RETURN IN THIS CASE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS A VALID RETURN, THE ONLY OPTION LEFT WITH THE AO WAS TO PROCEED WITH ASSESSM ENT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (B) TO S . 158BC OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: (B) THE AOSO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY. THE AO HAS NO OPTION BUT TO DETERMINE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME WHETHER A RETURN IS FILED OR NOT OR WHETHER THE RET URN FILED IS VALID ONE OR NOT. AS THE RETURN FILED WAS INVALID IN LAW , THE ONLY WAY TO PROCEED WITH DETERMINATION OF INCOME WAS BY WAY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (B) OF S.158BC. THE AO HAS PROCEEDED WITH ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING A N OTICE AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. HENCE, THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY I N THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY HIM IS CO RRECT AND AS PER LAW. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE APP ELLANT IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AND AOS ORDER IS UPHELD AND C ONFIRMED. IT(SS)A NO. 376-AHD-02 6 5. AGITATED WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A ), THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTE D BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN TREATING THE RETURN OF THE BLOCK PERIOD FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NON-EST IN TOTAL DISREGA RD OF THE FACT THAT THE RETURN WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE LAPSES ON THE PAR T OF THE AO WHO FAILED TO FURNISH THE XEROX COPIES OF THE SEIZED M ATERIALS AND ALSO FAILED TO DISTINGUISH THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAKESH S MARDIA [74 TTJ 836] ALTHOUGH IN THE SAID CASE THE RE WERE IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AND HAD THEREBY COMMITTED JUDICIAL IMPROPR IETY AND ERRED IN LAW IN REFUSING TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS HELD BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AGRAWAL WA REHOUSING & LEASING V. CIT [257 ITR 235] WHICH HAD FOLLOWED THE RULING OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT REPORTED IN (1992) AIR 1999 2 SC 711 WIT H REGARD TO JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. IT WAS, FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE CI T (A) HAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING AND CONFIRMING THE BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENT AS VALID ALTHOUGH IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE AO WITHOUT I SSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE RULING OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF R DALMIA & OTHERS V. CIT [ (1999) 23 6 ITR 480 (SC)]. 5.2. WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE AO, THE LD. AR FOUND FAULT WITH THE LD. CIT (A) THAT HE HAD FAILED TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS: (I) RS.51,000/- BEING THE AMOUNT PAID BY SHREEJI FA MILY TRUST TO PARSWANATH ESTATE CORPORATION AS UNDISCLOSED INVEST MENT; (II) RS.13 LAKHS BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT; (III) RS.2.80 LAKHS BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF BOUNDARY WALL AND BOREWALL; (IV) RS.13.4 LAKHS BEING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SANTEJ LAND; & IT(SS)A NO. 376-AHD-02 7 (V) RS.58.55 LAKHS BEING UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN O N ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS TO M/S.MARUTI CONSTRUCTION. 5.3. TO STRENGTHEN HIS ARGUMENTS, THE LD. A R HA D FURNISHED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 -79 PAGES WHICH CONSIST OF, INTER ALIA, COPIES OF (I) AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE, PARSHWANTH ESTATE C OPORATION & SHREEJI FAMILY TRUST, (II) STATEMENTS OF H.N. PANCH AL U/S 231 AND SHRI ARUN B KANSARA U/S 132 (4) OF THE ACT ETC., ALSO P LACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS, NAMELY: (I) PRAKASH METAL WORKS V. DCIT IN IT (SS)A NO.168/ AHD/2003 DT:10.4.2008; (II) CIT V. PRAKASH METAL WORKS IN TAX APPEAL NO.69 OF 2009 DT.23.3.2010 HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT; (III) LATE MR. JANAK K KANSARA V. DCIT IN IT(SS)A N O.146/AHD/2003 DATED 28.3.2008; (IV) SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD V. DCIT IN IT (SS) NO.70/AHD/2001 DATED 25.9.2009 & (V) ITO V. SHRI R.K.GUPTA IN ITA NO.1736/DEL/2003 D T: 18.1.2008 OF ITAT, DELHI G BENCH. 5.4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D R SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT AFTER A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE OTHER CASES OF THE SAME GROUP WERE ALSO COMPLETED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT . HOWEVER, IN SOME CASES, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED TO CA NCEL THE ASSESSMENT AFTER FOLLOWING THE CASE LAWS OF (I) SMT .BANDANA GOGOI V. CIT (289 ITR 28 GAU); (II) J.K. DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD . IN IT(SS)A NOS.167 & 225/AHD/2003 AND (III) JANAK K KANSARA IN IT (SS )A NO.146/AHD./2003. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CASES O F (I) SMT. BANDANA GOGOI AND (II) JANAK K KANSARA MENTIONED ABOVE. A COMPARISON OF THE MAIN IMPORTANT DATES RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT IS AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO. 376-AHD-02 8 SL. NO. EVENT IN THE CASE OF BANDANA GOGOI IN THE CASE OF JANAK KANSARA IN THE CASE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE 1 DATE OF SEARCH F.Y 1997-98 08.12.1998 08.12.1998 2 DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 158BC 20.08.1998 31.05.2000 31.05.2000 3 DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1) NOT AVAILABLE 13.11.2000 24.11.2000 07.11.2000 24.11.2000 4 DATE OF FILING OF RETURN 31.03.1999 10.11.2000 13.11.2000 5 DATE OF HEARING NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE 12.02.2001 15.02.2001 20.02.2001 6 DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT NOT AVAILABLE 30.01.2000 28.02.2001 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE TYPICAL FACTS, IT WAS URGED T HAT NO DECISION OF ANY COURT IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CAS E AND, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE CASE MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS. IN CONCLUSION, THE LD. D R RELIED ON THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) TH AT: (AT THE COST OF REPETITION) IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL APPEAL MEMO, THE LEARNED AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON HEARING DATED 11.10.02 STATED THA T THE APPELLANT DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THOSE GROUNDS AND WANTS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TO BE DECIDED. IN VIEW OF THIS A SSERTION, ALL THE SIX GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL MEMO ARE DISMISSED AND ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS, DILIGENTLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT CASE RECORDS, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S PRODUCED BY THE LD. AR IN THE SHAPE OF A PAPER BOOK AND ALSO VARIOU S RULINGS OF THE JUDICIARY CITED SUPRA. 6.1. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO LOCUS STANDI TO AGITATE THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 REF ERRED SUPRA, AS IT(SS)A NO. 376-AHD-02 9 ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT (A), THE LD. A R DURING TH E APPELLATE HEARING AFFIRMED THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THOSE GROUNDS AND WANTED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TO BE DECIDED. ACCORD INGLY, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN ITS APPEAL MEMO WERE DISMISSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). 6.2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THIS BE NCH ALSO, THE LD. A R HAD NOT DISPUTED THE AVERMENT OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS COUNT AND, THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS SCORE DE SERVE NO ADJUDICATION. 6.3. WE HAVE THUS BEEN LEFT WITH A SOLITARY GROU ND I.E., THE AO HAD ERRED IN LAW IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE B LOCK PERIOD WITHOUT ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND, CONSEQUENTLY, IN MAKING AN INVALID ASSESSMENT. 6.4. AFTER ANALYZING THE ISSUE IN DEPTH AND FOR THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER REFERRED SUPRA, THE CIT (A) VOUCHED THAT THERE WAS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY HIM WAS CORRECT AND AS PER LAW. 6.5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A R AND ALSO PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE. AS RIGHTLY HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. CIT (A), AFTER A SEARCH COND UCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, A NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT DT. 31.5.2000 WAS SLAPPED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 2.6.2000 IN WHICH THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOC K PERIOD WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE SAID NOTICE. THIS P ERIOD OF 45 DAYS IS THE MAXIMUM PERIOD ALLOWABLE FOR FILING OF A RETURN AS PER CLAUSE A(II) OF S. 158 BC OF THE ACT. AS THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES FOR FILING OF A RETURN IN RESPONSE NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT AFTER A LAPSE IT(SS)A NO. 376-AHD-02 10 OF THE PRESCRIBED DATE WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS A VALID RETURN. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONSEQUENCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT WITHIN THE DUE DATE. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT DU E TO NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT WITHIN THE DUE D ATE, THE LD. AO HAD ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DT.11.10.2000 ASKING THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PROSECUTION U/S 276CCC OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE INITIATED FOR NON- FILING OF THE RETURN. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 142( 1) OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE INTIMATING THAT NO RETURN WAS FURNI SHED BY IT WITHIN THE DUE DATE AND, THUS, IT WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH VARI OUS DETAILS AND EXPLANATION SO THAT ASSESSMENT COULD BE CONCLUDED. THUS, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS WITHIN HIS REALM TO OBSERVE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE. ASSESSEE AFTER THE LAPSE OF STIPULATED TIME FR AME PRESCRIBED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT HAS TO BE TREATED AS ' NON EST' . WE HAVE ALSO DULY PERUSED THE CASE LAWS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PLA CED ITS RELIANCE, HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THOSE C ASES ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE AND HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE ON HAND. THE RETURN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ACTED UPON S INCE IT WAS FURNISHED BEYOND THE TIME STIPULATED IN THE STATUTE , THE LD. AO WAS LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S 14 2 (1) OF THE ACT AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (B) OF S. 158BC OF THE ACT. IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMI TY IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) WHICH REQUIRES OUR INTERVENTION. 7. IN THE RESULT , THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6 %5 / 4$( 7#) 29 / 12 /2011 $ 8 / 1 9 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29/12/2011 IT(SS)A NO. 376-AHD-02 11 %5 %5 %5 %5 / // / -2: -2: -2: -2: ;%:(2) ;%:(2) ;%:(2) ;%:(2)- -- - 1. +, 2. -.+, 3. ## 2 ? 4. ?- - 5. :B -2 , , 9 6. D E6 %5 %, / # , 9 TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S.