Home Income tax Corporate Income tax Re-assessment Without Notice Under I-T Section 143(2) is Invalid

Re-assessment Without Notice Under I-T Section 143(2) is Invalid

0
Re-assessment Without Notice Under I-T Section 143(2) is Invalid
Hyderabad ITAT's Order for Gonuguntla Nirmala Devi

The re-assessment with out the issuance of discover underneath Part 143(2) of the Earnings Tax Act 1961 was void, Hyderabad Bench of Earnings Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dominated.

Gonuguntla Nirmala Devi, a person taxpayer, submitted her tax return for the 2012-13 evaluation yr on March 30, 2014, disclosing her earnings. The tax authorities initially processed her return underneath Part 143(1) of the Earnings Tax Act. Later, as a result of sure data obtained, they determined to reopen her case underneath Part 147 of the Earnings Tax Act, and a discover was issued to her underneath Part 148.

The Assessing Officer famous that regardless of issuing a discover on March 28, 2019, which was correctly served to the taxpayer, she didn’t reply. One other discover requesting extra particulars was despatched on April 12, 2019, and it was served to the taxpayer on June 13, 2019. Nonetheless, she nonetheless didn’t present the required data. A listening to was scheduled for November 6, 2019, and the discover was delivered to the taxpayer on October 25, 2019, however she didn’t attend.

Lastly, the taxpayer responded to a discover dated November 29, 2019, which set the listening to date for December 5, 2019. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded the evaluation and, via an order dated December 24, 2019, made underneath Part 143(3) with Part 147 of the Earnings Tax Act, decided the taxpayer’s earnings.

R. Venkataraman, representing the taxpayer, argued that the issuance of a discover underneath Part 143(2) of the Earnings Tax Act was required when the taxpayer responded to the discover issued underneath Part 148 of the Earnings Tax Act. The response indicated that the unique tax return must be thought-about as having been filed in reply to the discover underneath Part 148 of the Earnings Tax Act.

He additional contended that the taxpayer had certainly submitted the earnings tax return in response to the discover underneath Part 148 of the Earnings Tax Act. Subsequently, because of the absence of a discover issued underneath Part 143(2) of the Act, the evaluation was legally flawed.

He additionally talked about that the Supreme courts determination for the case of ACIT vs. Resort Blue Moon and the choices of the assorted Excessive Courts distinguished from the opposite choices was to be the impact that in case the beginning of the proceedings in part 143(3) learn with part 147 of the Act, needing to offer the discover underneath Part 143(2) of the Earnings Tax Act was compulsory and Part 292BB of the Earnings Tax Act cannot remedy the identical flaw.

However, Sheetal Sarin, representing the tax authorities, argued that the taxpayer had not initially filed any earnings tax return or requested that the unique return of earnings be handled as a response to the discover underneath Part 148 of the Earnings Tax Act. As an alternative, the taxpayer had later submitted the earnings tax return on-line and despatched a letter, indicating that the return filed on the day past must be thought-about because the response to the discover underneath Part 148 of the IT Act.

The taxpayer’s enchantment was dismissed by the two-member bench of Ramakanta Panda, (Vice President) and Okay.Narasimha Chary, (Judicial Member) which dominated that “On this case, it’s not the case of the taxpayer that there was any evaluation underneath part 143(3) or part 147 of the Act earlier. Subsequently the taxpayer’s case counted not underneath part 151(1), however it falls underneath part 151(2) of the Act, wherein case the satisfaction of the Joint Commissioner is satisfactory. The taxpayer doesn’t have a superb case on this level.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here