Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Kamlesh Shantilal Jain, Chennai vs Acit, Chennai on 23 February, 2021
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,'सी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी वी.दग
ु ा राव, या यक सद य एवं ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद य के सम%
BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO,JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकरअपीलसं./I.T. A.Nos.3335/Chny/2018
( नधारणवष / Assessm ent Year: 2015-16)
Mr. Kamalesh Shantilal Jain, Vs Assistant Commissioner of
7/1 -20, 4th floor, Waddels Road, Income Tax,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1)
Chennai-600 034.
PAN:AAFP J 2745J
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) यथ /Respondent/
: Mr.S.Sankaralingam, IRS CIT (Retd)
अपीलाथ क ओरसे/ Appellant by
Mr.T.C.Narayanan,IT Practitioner
Mr.A.K.Ramu, ITO Retired
यथ क ओरसे/Respondentby : Mr.G.Johnson, Addl CIT
सुनवाईक तार ख/Da t e of h ear in g : 10.02.2021
घोषणाक तार ख /D at e of Pr on o unc e m en t : 23.02.2021
आदे श / O R D E R
PER G.MANJUNATHA, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the learned CIT(A)-12, Chennai dated 19.11.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2015-16.
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
"1. This appeal is against the orders of ClT (Appeals)-12, Chennai (order in ITA I02/CIT (A) -12 /2017-18, passed on 19-11-18.
2. The order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and opposed to principles of natural justice, fair procedure and legitimate expectation.
3. Denial of fair opportunities and natural justice:
The first appellate authority failed to consider the written submissions filed during the course of hearing. He did not afford reasonable opportunities to the appellant before coming to conclusions. He did not provide any opportunity before applying 2 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 the case law quoted by him in the order. He did not discuss any of the decisions relied on by the appellant and referred to in the written submissions.
4. Assessment order:
The assessment order uls 143 read with section 147 is based on conjectures, pre-concluded mindset enquires and materials not directly related to the appellants role.
5. Assesses conduct:
The Honourable CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee had discharged his responsibility in proving the transactions and it is for the A.O. to disprove them before making an addition or disallowing the claims made by the assessee in the return. He had failed to take note of the fact that the share prices of the company under reference has seen ups and downs during a period of 21 months as noted by the A.O in her assessment order and the assessee had no role in these fluctuations.
6. Materials used against the assessee :
The learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to note, as pointed out by the appellant in the grounds of appeal before him, that the AO had not referred to any report/statement from broker indicating the assessee personally for his role in price manipulation and/or obtaining bogus entries etc., If any. The learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to note that the assessment made, without affording an opportunity to the assessee to cross- examine any information /evidence used in the assessment is against the principles of natural justice and established assessment procedures.
7. Written submissions filed before the CIT (A):
The appellant submits the grounds ofappeal and written submissions filed before the CIT (Appeals) may be taken as part and parcel of this grounds of appeal.
8. Decisions relied on by the CIT (A):
a) The CIT(Appeals) has referred to the Honourable Supreme Court's order on 8-2-18 in the case of SEBI vs Rakhi Trading Private Limited. That was an appeal by the SEBI against the order of Securities Appellate Tribunal. The 3 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 facts of the case are different in entirety with the facts of the present appeal. That case related to futures and options trading the same day within minutes and seconds-by certain broken and traders. The allegations in the said case was that that the parties were buying and selling securities in the derivatives segment at a price which did not reflect the value of the underlying in synchronized and reverse transactions." The Supreme Courts decision is about synchronized trading and held it is violative of transparent norms of lading in securities. The decision does not have relevance to an investor buying shares at a lesser price and selling them at a lucrative price after some time say one year, both transactions through proper approved channels i.e stock exchange registered brokers.
b) The CIT (Appeals) has referred to a decision of Chennai ITAT in the case of Vidya Reddy vs ITO (TA 2016 of 2017) The facts in the said case are different from the present appeal. In the present appeal the assesse had produced all available evidences in his possession on genuineness of investment in shares of the company and produced details of bank entries for buying and receiving sale proceeds, contract notes, the names and addresses of brokers for purchase and sale.
9. No evidence against the appellant:
The CIT (Appeals) has failed to note that there is no direct or indirect evidence that the appellant entered into any collision direct, deliberate, conscious and systematic actions towards converting unaccounted money into long term profit on sale of shares. Neither the AO nor the CIT (Appeals) could show any direct evidence from any source about such an activity on the part of the appellant.
10. Appellant had no control over the share price:
The AO and the CIT (Appeals) have failed to note that in the case of the assessee the genuineness of the company MIs. PS IT Infra Services Ltd which is a third part and not under the control of the assessee and whose shares assessee had purchased and sold is the issue. Moreover the purchase and sales of shares were made through recognized stock exchange in the open market from unknown and unconnected peTsons. Therefore the final reason given by the CIT(Appeal) for upholding 4 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 the Assessment order is without any evidence but merely an unproved allegation on the assessee
11. Long term capital gains exemption:
The CIT (Appeals) and the AO have failed to note that the assessee did not sell the shares when the price of share was ruling at its highest Rs,552 per share during July 2014 but sold them after one year of holding to make benefit of long tern' capital gains exemption. The CIT (Appeals) and the AO have failed to appreciate that the appellant is lawfully entitled to arrange his financial affairs to make benefit out of tax exemptions available.
12. Similar case decided by the ITAT Chennai:
The facts of the case are similar to the case in ITA II87/CHNY/2017 wherein the Honourable ITAT Chermai "C Bench held that "conclusion cannot be bluntly made on the basis of surmises and conjectures in the case of any assessee when certain other material factors are in favour of the assessee"
l3.Other related decisions:
The appellant relies on the following decisions in his support:
a) Bombay High Court in the case of Jamna Devi Aggarwal 236 CTR 32(2010)
b) Bombay High Court in the case of Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (2012)80 CCH 0407 C) Gujarat High Court in the case of Maheshchandra G.Vakil (2013)40 Taxman 326
d) Ahinedabad ITAT in the case of Mahesh G Vakil ITA No.3104 IAhd./2009
e) Kolkata High Court in the case of Emerald Commercial Ltd (2002)120 Taxman 282
f) Kolkata ITAT in the case of Sunita Khemka ITA No.714 to 718/Kol/2011.5 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018
g) Kolkata ITAT in the case of Anil Khemka ITA No.901 to 905/Kol/2009 dated 28/01/2010
14. Additional grounds:
The appellant craves leave to file additional grounds."
3. The assessee has also filed a petition for admission of additional grounds and argued that by an inadvertent error, he has omitted to take a specific ground challenging validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act, before expiry of time limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, and thus, reassessment proceedings are null and void and hence, a petition has been filed explaining facts and reasons for filing additional grounds.
The AR further submitted that additional grounds of appeal taken by the assessee is purely legal ground and further no new facts are required to be examined and hence, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) additional grounds filed by assessee may be admitted.
4. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposing additional grounds filed by assessee submitted that assessee has failed to make out a case for admission of additional grounds and also facts with regard to said additional grounds 6 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 was already on record and hence, additional grounds of appeal filed by assessee should not be admitted.
5. We have heard both parties and considered petition filed by assessee for admission of additional grounds and we find that additional grounds taken by assessee challenging reassessment proceedings in light of notice issued u/s.148 before expiry of time limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) is purely a legal ground for which there is no requirement of examining any facts and hence in view of specific ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), additional grounds of appeal filed by assessee are admitted.
6. The assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal:-
"1. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have noted that the notice u/s 148 issued even before the expiry of time limit for issue of notice u/s l43(2)and thereby re-assessment proceedings are null and void.
2. The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the Assessing Officer never issued notice u/s 143(2) after the 7 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 assessee filed the return in response to notice u/s148 and therefore the impugned order is invalid.
3. The earned CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the assessing officer reopened the assessment blindly based on the general investigation report received from DI (investigation) Kolkatta, without independent application of mind and independent verification.
4. The teamed CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the satisfaction of escapement of income was by the DIT (Investigation) only and not by the Assessing Officer himself and therefore it amounted to borrowed satisfaction.
5. The learned CIT (Appeals) failed to note that the sanction granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income tax was a mechanical one without reference to the relevant documents and without his own application of mind."
7. Brief facts are that assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in non-ferrous metals filed his return of income for assessment year 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of ` 2,55,23,010/- and said return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 02.08.2016. The assessment has been subsequently reopened for the reasons recorded, as per which income chargeable to tax had been 8 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 escaped assessment and accordingly, notice u/s.148 dated 23.09.2016 was duly served on the assessee. In response to said notice, assessee has requested to treat return of income filed on 30.09.2015 as return filed in response to notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has declared long term capital gain from sale of shares of M/s. PS IT Infra & Services Ltd. for ` 7,32,82,880/- and further claimed exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore, he called upon assessee to file necessary details including computation of long term capital gain from sale of shares. The Assessing Officer further, on the basis of information filed by the assessee noted that assessee had originally purchased 10,00,000 equity shares of M/s. PS IT Infra & Services Ltd., on 16.08.2013 from M/s. Prem Sagar Vinimay Pvt .Ltd. through open offer @ ` 35 per equity share. These shares were subsequently demated and sold between 30.10.2014 and 03.12.2014 at rates ranging from ` 70 to 90 per equity share. The Assessing Officer after analyzing share price in stock market and on analysis of financials of company has come to the conclusion that scrip 9 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 sold by assessee is penny stock and share price was rigged in collusion with certain parties and accordingly, made additions towards entire sale consideration received from sale of M/s. PS IT Infra & Services Ltd., as unexplained cash credits and brought to tax u/s. 68 of the Act.
8. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before learned CIT(A) but could not succeed. The learned CIT(A) for the reasons recorded in appellate order dated 19.11.2018 has confirmed additions made by Assessing Officer towards sale consideration received from transfer of equity shares on the ground that entire transaction was fraudulent to create undue and illegal benefit to the assessee . It is immaterial whether assessee has used banking channels or not, but what is relevant to decide whether particular transaction is genuine or not is the substance of transaction between the parties. From the facts gathered during assessment proceedings, it is very clear that assessee has created transaction knowing well that company, agents and other persons involved in the organized racket are aiding assessee to create bogus share transactions 10 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 resulting to sham transactions, accordingly, opined that there is no error in the findings of Assessing Officer to make addition towards sale consideration received for sale of equity shares u/s.68 of the Act. Aggrieved by learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
9. The first issue that came up for consideration in the additional grounds filed by assessee is validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act and consequent reassessment order passed u/s.147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that notice issued u/s.148 and consequent reassessment proceedings is invalid because, Assessing Officer had issued reassessment notice u/s.148 of the Act on 23.09.2016 and said notice was issued before expiry of time limit for issue of assessment notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. The AR referring to chronology of events submitted that assessee has filed return of income for impugned assessment year on 30.09.2015 and said return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 10.08.2016. The due date for issue of notice u/s.143(2) is upto 30.09.2016. The Assessing Officer has issued reassessment notice u/s.148 of 11 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 the Act on 23.09.2016. From the above, it is very clear that notice issued u/s.148 of the Act on 23.09.2016 is before the expiry of time limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act i.e. upto 30.09.2016 and consequently, initiation of proceedings u/s.148 is not valid and hence, whole proceedings is null and void. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s.Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd.(2009) 308 ITR 249 and in the case of CIT vs. K.M Pachayappan 304 ITR 264. The assessee has also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Chennai Third Member decision in the case of M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2010) 129 TTJ 305.
10. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supporting order of learned CIT(A) submitted that there is no merit in the arguments taken by assessee in light of decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K.M Pachayappan (supra), because ITAT., Ahmedabad 'D" Bench in the case of ITO vs Ripul C.Dalal in ITA No.1022/Ahd/2003 has considered an identical issue and by following the decision of ITAT., Lucknow Bench in the case of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance 12 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 Ltd. Vs DCIT (2009) 32 SOT 80 has held that in view of amendments brought in to Explanation 2(b) to section 147 of the Act, the law laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. K.M Pachayappan (supra) is no more applicable, because when there is no assessment framed, the Assessing Officer is well within his powers to reopen the assessment, but such reopening can be made even before expiry of time limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act.
11. We have heard both parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The solitary question that came up for our consideration in the given facts and circumstances of the case is whether notice issued u/s.148 dated 23.09.2016 is valid and consequent reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 dated 30.12.2017 is valid or not? The admitted facts borne out from records clearly indicate that assessee filed return of income for impugned assessment year on 30.09.2015 and said return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 10.08.2016. Further, time limit for issue of scrutiny assessment notice u/s.143(2) was 13 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 available upto 30.09.2016. It is also an admitted fact that before expiry of time limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, on 30.09.2016, the Assessing Officer has issued reassessment notice u/s.148 on 23.09.2016. It is well settled principle of law by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd.(supra), that when time for issue of notice u/s.143(2) had not expired, the Assessing Officer cannot issue reassessment notice u/s.148 of the Act. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of K.M Pachayappan (supra) has considered an identical issue and by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust vs. CIT (2000) 242 ITR 381, held that conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that no action could be initiated u/s.147 of the Act, when there is pendency of return before the Assessing Officer based on valid materials and facts do not call for any interference. We further noted that the Hon'ble Madras High Court while answering substantial question in favour of the assessee held that when valid return is filed within due date 14 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 specified under the Act, the Assessing Officer can issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act for framing assessment u/s.143(3) when time limit for issue of such notice is available. In a situation where Assessing Officer can issue notice u/s.143(2), he could not have issued notice for the purpose of reopening of assessment u/s.147 of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Madras High Court are as under:-
"5. Heard the counsel. In this case, Return of income was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act on 15.03.2000 and notice under Section 143(2) for framing assessment under Section 143(3) could have been issued upto 31.03.2000. Therefore, a valid Return of income was pending as on 15.03.2000. The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 on 15.03.2000 when a valid Return under Section 139(4) was pending. In this case the Return was filed and the same is pending, which means that the proceeding is still pending. In such a situation, the Revenue could not have issued notice for the purpose of reopening under Section 147 of the Act. In the case of Trustees Of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 242 ITR 381 (SC), the Supreme Court considered the scope of reopening the assessment and held as follows:
"It is settled law that unless the return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment under section 148 cannot be issued, i.e., no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return already filed are not terminated. According to the Revenue it is immaterial whether the order is communicated or not and the only bar to the 15 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 reassessment proceedings is that proceedings on the return already filed should have been terminated."
".... A mere glance at this note would show that it could not be said that the Income-tax Officer gave finality to the refund since no refund is granted either in the hands of the trust or in the hands of the beneficiaries. It is an inconclusive note where the Income-tax Officer left the matter at the stage of consideration even with regard to refund in the hands of the beneficiaries. This note was also not communicated to the trustees. When we examine the note dated November 10, 1965, on the file of 1963-64 nothing flows from that as well. In any case if it is an order, it would be appealable under section 249 of the Act. Since the period of limitation starts from the date of intimation of such an order, it is imperative that such an order be communicated to the assessee. Had the Income-tax Officer passed any final order, it would have been communicated to the assessee within a reasonable period. In any case, what we find is that the note dated November 10, 1965, is merely an internal endorsement on the file without there being an indication if the refund application has been finally rejected. By merely recording that in his opinion, no credit for tax deducted at source is to be allowed, the Income-tax Officer cannot be said to have closed the proceedings finally. The decisions referred to by the Revenue are of no help in the present case. We are, thus, of the opinion that during the pendency of the return filed under section 139 of the Act along with the refund application under section 237 of the Act, action could not have been taken under section 147/148 of the Act. Our answer to the question, therefore, is in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue."
In the case of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court, following the above Supreme Court judgment, considered the scope of provision of Sections 139 and 147 of the Act and held as follows:
16ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018
"Applying this line of decisions to the facts of the present case, the inescapable conclusion that would have to be reached is that while assessment proceedings remain inchoate, no "fresh evidence or material" could possibly be unearthed. If any such material or evidence is available, there would be no restrictions or constraints on its being taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer for framing the then current assessment. If the assessment is not framed before the expiry of the period of limitation for a particular assessment year, it would have to be assumed that since proceedings had not been opened under section 143(2), the return had been accepted as correct. It may be argued that thereafter recourse could be taken to section 147, provided fresh material had been received by the Assessing Officer after the expiry of limitation fixed for framing the original assessment. So far as the present case is concerned, we are of the view that it is evident that, faced with severe paucity of time, the Assessing Officer had attempted to travel the path of section 147 in the vain attempt to enlarge the time available for framing the assessment. This is not permissible in law."
Applying the principles enunciated in the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as the Delhi High Court, cited supra, the Tribunal is right in coming to a conclusion that no action could be initiated under Section 147 of the Act, when there is a pendency of the Return before the Assessing Officer. The reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference."
12. We further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT (supra) has considered an identical issue and held that it is well settled law that unless return of income already filed is disposed of, notice for reassessment u/s.148 cannot be 17 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 issued i.e. no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as valid return filed by assessee is attained finality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that if assessment is not framed before expiry of period of limitation for the particular assessment year, it would have to be assumed that since proceedings had not been opened under section 143(2), the return had been accepted as correct. It may be argued that thereafter recourse could be taken to section 147, provided fresh material had been received by the Assessing Officer after the expiry of limitation fixed for framing the original assessment. In this case, on perusal of facts available on record, we find that assessee has filed valid return within due date prescribed under the Act and such return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Further, time limit for issue of 143(2) notice was not expired, when the Assessing Officer has issued reassessment notice u/s.148 dated 23.09.2016. Therefore, we are of the considered view that case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs. K.M Pachayappan (supra) and the view taken by Hon'ble High Court of Madras is fully 18 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT (supra) and hence, notice issued u/s. 148 dated 23.09.2016 is invalid and consequent reassessment order framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 30.12.2017 is null and void.
13. Coming back to the case law relied upon by learned DR in light of amendments brought in as Explanation 2(b) to section 147 of the Act, in light of the decision of ITAT., Ahmedabad 'D"
Bench in ITO Vs. Ripul C.Dalal (supra). We find that although the Tribunal has decided the issue by referring to the decision of ITAT., Lucknow Bench in the case of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. Vs DCIT (supra), but facts of those cases are entirely different and further Tribunal has not taken into consideration binding precedent of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the cases of CIT Vs. Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. K.M Pachayappan (supra). Further, amendments brought in as Explanation 2(b) to section 147 of the Act, is on different context and has no relevance to the issue of whether reassessment notice can be issued before 19 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 expiry of time limit of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) or not. Further, as per Explanation 2(b) what we understood is deemed cases at escaped assessment also includes a case where return of income has been furnished by assessee, but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return. From plain reading of Explanation 2(b) of section 147, it is very clear that even if no assessment was made u/s.143(1) or 143(3), still assessment can be reopened u/s.147 of the Act, if the Assessing Officer noticed escapement or understatement of income. In this case, issue is entirely different because question before us is whether Assessing Officer was right in issuing reassessment notice u/s. 148 of the Act, when valid return filed by assessee is not attained finality. Therefore, we are of the considered view that Explanation 2(b) has no relevance to decide the issue whether Assessing Officer was right in reopening of assessment u/s. 147, when he could have issued assessment notice u/s. 143(2) on valid return filed by 20 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 assessee and the time limit for issue of such notice is not expired when reassessment notice was issued.
14. In this view of the matter, and considering facts and circumstances of the case and by respectfully following decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the cases of CIT Vs M/s.Qatalys Software Technologies Ltd.(supra) and in the case of CIT vs. K.M Pachayappan (supra), we are of the considered view that notice issued u/s.148 dated 23.09.2016, before the expiry of time limit for notice u/s.143(2) for the impugned assessment year is invalid and thus, consequent reassessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 is null and void. Hence, we quash reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.
15. The assessee has raised various grounds challenging validity of assessment order passed by Assessing Officer in light of non-issue of notice u/s.143(2) after filing return of income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act and argued that in absence of notice issued u/s.143(2) against return of income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, 21 ITA No. 3335/Chny/2018 assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is invalid and liable to be quashed. The assessee has also challenged additions made by Assessing Officer towards sale consideration received for transfer of equity shares u/s.68 of the Act on merits. Since, we have quashed the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer on legal issue, other grounds taken by assessee including non-issue of notice u/s.143(2) and also additions made by Assessing Officer towards sale consideration u/s.68 of the Act becomes academic in nature. Hence, other grounds taken by assessee are dismissed as infructuous.
16. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd February, 2021 Sd/ Sd/-
( वी.दग
ु ा राव ) ( जी.मंजुनाथ )
(V.Durga Rao) (G.Manjunatha)
"या यक सद$य /Judicial Member लेखा सद$य / Accountant Member
चे"नई/Chennai,
'दनांक/Dated 23rd February, 2021
DS
आदे श क त)ल*प अ+े*षत/Copy to:
1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आयु,त (अपील)/CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु,त/CIT 5. *वभागीय त न1ध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.