MADHU BAID, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIIR, MUMBAI

ITSSA 47/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9102 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARESH KUMAR BALODIA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHANKARLAL JAIN
• Keywords: Procedural lapse
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI V.DURG A RAO, JM I.T(SS)A.NO.47/MUM/2009 BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1995 TO 17.8.2001 SMT. MADHU BAID, CHANDRA MAHAL, 1 ST FLOOR, 241, PRINCES STREET, MUMBAI 400 002. PAN: AAEPB 5509 P VS. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-9, MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHANKARLAL JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARESH KUMAR BALODIA O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), CENTRAL-VII, MUMBAI, DATED 15.09.2008, FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1995 TO 17.08.2001, WHEREIN THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED UNDER SEC TION 158BD READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE UN DISPUTED FACT AS RECORDED IN PARA 3, PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD ON 07.10 .2003, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 08.08.2005. THUS, THE NOTICE IS ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INC OME. THUS, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. HOTEL BLUE MOO N (2010) 321 ITR 362(SC). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME IS MANDATORY AND I.T(SS).A.NO.47MUM/2009 SMT. MADHU BAID 2 CANNOT BE A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY, WHICH CAN BE C URABLE. THUS, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 9 TH DAY OF JULY, 2010. SD. SD. (V.DURGA RAO) (J. SUDHAKAR REDD Y) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED THE 29 TH JULY, 2010. KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIR.9, MUMBAI 3. THE CIT, CENTRAL I, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A), CENTRAL VII, MUMBAI 5. THE DR B BENCH, MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI