Punjab-Haryana High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Late Niranjan Lal Verma on 20 November, 2008
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
I. T. A. No. 511 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : I. T. A. No. 511 of 2008
Date of Decision : November 20, 2008
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Faridabad .... Appellant
Vs.
Late Niranjan Lal Verma
through Subhash Verma .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel
for the Revenue.
Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Parvesh Saini, Advocate
for the Assessee.
* * *
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) :
1. This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 193 of 2008, 194 of 2008, 240 of 2007, filed by the Assessee and ITA Nos. 511 of 2008, 512 of 2008, 524 of 2008 and 525 of 2008, filed by the Revenue, as common questions of law arise for consideration in all these appeals.
2. Search was conducted at the residence of Subhash Verma and Krishna Verma on 12.03.1999, which was concluded on 16.04.1999 and certain documents were seized. After issuing notice under Section 158 BD, assessment was completed. On appeal of the Assessee, some relief was I. T. A. No. 511 of 2008 2 given, against which the Revenue filed further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Assessee filed appeal to the extent that he was not given relief by the CIT (A). During the course of hearing before the Tribunal, there was a difference of opinion, which led to reference to Special Bench vide order dated 11.09.2006, on the question whether in absence of 15 days' notice to the Assessee, assessment under Section 158 BC will be rendered void. Special Bench answered the reference against the Assessee. Special Bench held that defect in complying with the procedure of giving 15 days' clear notice was curable. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue fresh notice under Section 158 BC and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The assessment proceedings were quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that view taken by the Tribunal was erroneous as even in the absence of notice of 15 days, the proceedings could be sustained as there was no prejudice to the Assessee.
4. Learned counsel for the Assessee supports the stand of the Revenue and submits that quashing of all proceedings was not justified. He gives up the objection raised before the Tribunal based on invalidity of the notice to the Assessee.
5. In view of above, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal to deal with the appeal of the Revenue and Assessee afresh, in accordance with law.
6. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21.01.2009 for further proceedings.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
November 20, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL )
monika JUDGE