Home Income tax Corporate Income tax Can’t Use IT Section 143 & 144 for Assessment After Deadline Has Passed

Can’t Use IT Section 143 & 144 for Assessment After Deadline Has Passed

0
Can’t Use IT Section 143 & 144 for Assessment After Deadline Has Passed
Chandigarh ITAT's Order for M/s SPS Realtors Private Limited

No assessments may very well be made below part 143 or 144 of the Revenue Tax Act submit 12 months from the end of the pertinent evaluation 12 months, the Chandigarh bench of the Revenue Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noticed.

The taxpayer firm reported a taxable revenue of Rs. 8,59,050/- in 2012, later assessed at Rs. 12,13,510/ in 2015. An investigation in 2018 reveals the corporate had arrange sub-contractor corporations, utilizing them to falsely declare bills and scale back earnings.

The assessing officer on the grounds of the investigation wing report issued a discover in 2019 alleging Rs 10,30,66,089 within the pretend bills. The AO thought-about that the identical quantity escaped evaluation due to the failure of the corporate to fully present the fabric info relating to lodging entries, remaining unverified within the authentic and returned revenue assessments.

Learn Additionally:- ITAT Mumbai Deletes Closing Scrutiny Evaluation U/S 143(3) On account of Lack of DIN

In reply to a bit 148 discover, counsel for the taxpayer Ashwani Kumar Aditya Kumar and Muskan Garg filed a return of revenue, declaring Rs. 9,91,640/- dated 23/04/2019. Asking causes for the discover obtained dated 30/10/2019, the taxpayer raised objections on 15/11/2019, addressed by the AO on 27/11/2019.

Beneath sections 143(2) and 142(1) the Notices have been issued dated 28/11/2019 and 29/11/2019, respectively. Regardless of the submissions of the taxpayer, the AO, within the evaluation order on 17/12/2019 below sections 143(3) and 147, thought-about sub-contractor corporations fictitious for pretend bills, taxing Rs. 10,30,66,089/- below part 69C because of the failure to provide sub-contractors for examination.

Additionally Learn:- CBDT: Scrutiny Not Obligatory When Tax Returns Filed U/S 142(1)

Throughout the listening to, the respondent Sarabjeet Singh’s counsel emphasised a critical error in confirming the evaluation order’s validity. They highlighted that the proceedings didn’t adjust to the Division’s necessary directions for the Assessing Officer (AO).

The evaluation order wasn’t uploaded on the assessee firm’s e-filing portal however was solely delivered through courier. Furthermore, crucially, the order lacked the point out of the Doc Identification Quantity (DIN).

On the opposite facet, counsel for the assessee—Ashwani Kumar, Aditya Kumar, and Muskan Garg—contested these findings. They argued that the reassessment order and spot of demand have been issued individually below distinct sections.

Subsequently, they have been deemed impartial communications, necessitating completely different Doc Identification Numbers (DIN). In help of his stance, he has given a replica of the evaluation order below part 143(3), a discover of demand below part 156, and a tax computation sheet for one of many assessee’s group firms, M/s SPS Realtors Personal Restricted.

Such paperwork, allotted by way of the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh, have been concurrently on 23/06/2021, relating to Evaluation Yr 2019-20.

The counsel for the respondent Sarabjeet Singh has burdened that the demand discover together with the evaluation order should not be considered in isolation and the absence of a separate DIN quantity doesn’t make the evaluation order invalid. 

The 2-member bench of the tribunal comprising Aakash Deep Jain (Vice President) and Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) concluded that below the aforesaid discussions the place put aside reassessment order, different bases of petition for the deserves of the case, and many others., turned tutorial.

Essential:- Chennai ITAT: Compensation Funds Are Not Thought of Curiosity U/S 194A for TDS Deduction

Subsequently, it was decided that there was no must decide on this matter. These enchantment grounds have been consequently left unresolved, to be addressed later if needed. In the mean time, they have been thought-about irrelevant and dismissed. Consequently, the assessee’s enchantment was partially granted.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here