Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
C I T Kota vs Dilbagh Kumar on 27 March, 2012
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.533/2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota Vs. Shri Dilbagh Kumar 27.03.2012 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Ms.Parinitoo Jain for the appellant.
The matter is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota Vs. Shri Chanan Das (D.B.Income Tax Appeal No.340/2011 decided on 21.2.2012). Following order has been passed in Income Tax Appeal No.340/2011.
Order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in four misc.applications arising out of Cross Objections No.1/JP/2005(ITSSA No.84/JP/2004), 80/JP/2005(ITSSA No.62/JP/2005), 16/JP/2005(ITSSA No.100/JP/2004 and 79/JP/2005(ITSSA No.64/JP/2005) has been questioned.
In the cross objections ground was taken that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was served upon the assessee before framing the block assessment. The Tribunal has dismissed the ground of the assessee by holding that issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act is not necessary for assessment under Section 158BC of the IT Act. Decision of the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon, 321 ITR 362(SC) has been relied upon by the Tribunal to allow the applications for setting aside the previous order which was passed by it. Reliance has also been placed on decision of the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 305 ITR 227(SC). Applications were not objected to. Prayer was made by DR to dispose of the misc.applications.
Considering that the decision of the Apex Court was not available at the time of passing of the order, the Tribunal has corrected its order and held that without serving notice under Section 143(2) of the IT Act, the assessments were without jurisdiction and thus void ab initio.
Considering the fact that the applications were not contested, rather accented to, we find no ground to interfere the impugned order which has been passed relying upon the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.
Admittedly, this appeal also arises out of the same order.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid appeal. Civil Misc.Stay Application No.4377/2011 is also dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),C.J. Skant/-
All the corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Shashi Kant Gaur, P