Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Delhi dated 30.04.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2011-12.

2. The sole grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) wrongly applied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon which was in the context of assessment u/s 158BC of the [A.Y 2011-12] Logic Control Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] whereas in the instant case, the same does not apply as the case is reopening u/s 148 of the Act.

5. The ld. DR vehemently stated that the reliance of the ld. CIT(A) on the case of Hotel Blue Moon, Civil Appeal No.1198 Of 2010 dated 02.02.2010 is not applicable in the instant case as the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act and the assessee filed delayed return in response to the same. The return was filed beyond the stipulated time and hence the issue/service of notice u/s 143(2) is not applicable in such a case.

6. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee forcefully argued that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is a must while framing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee further [A.Y 2011-12] Logic Control stated that in the instant case, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued at all. It is the say of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the Assessing Officer has further considered the return filed on 11.09.2018 in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act and has accepted the return as valid while determining the total income. In view of the same, the ld. counsel for the assessee argued that the decision in the case of PCIT Vs. Dart Infrabuild Pvt Ltd 460 ITR 532 is squarely applicable.

8. The legal requirement of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was established by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra) where the return filed is necessary to be checked and for framing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. We find that the decision [A.Y 2011-12] Logic Control of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Dart Infrabuild [supra] is squarely applicable which reads as under:

"15. This brings us to the second aspect of the matter, i.e., the consequences of the failure of the appellant/revenue to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act before framing the assessment order. Concededly, the appellant/revenue did not issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, although it had on record the ROI filed by the respondent/assessee for the AY in issue, i.e., 2010-
11. The return was, concededly, filed on 04.12.2015. This return was considered while framing the assessment under Section 147/144 of the Act. The only reason furnished for not issuing a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is that the ROI was not filed within the thirty (30) days provided via the notice dated 30.03.2015 issued under Section 148. This argument does not impress us because if we were to hold [as we have], that the said notice was directed towards the wrong address, the respondent/assessee could have not adhered to the timeline provided in the said notice. 15.1 The respondent/assessee became aware of the Section 148 notice being issued after it received the notice dated 12.06.2015 under Section 142(1) of the Act. The fact that the respondent/assessee had filed an ROI on 04.12.2015 is not disputed. The fact that this ROI, as noticed above, was taken into account is also not in dispute. Therefore, in our opinion, before framing an assessment order, the AO ought to have issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. The submission advanced on behalf of the appellant/revenue that, while it could consider the invalid [A.Y 2011-12] Logic Control return while framing the assessment order, it was not obliged to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act because it was not filed within the timeframe given in the Section 148 notice is untenable in law, since the ROI, which was belated, was considered by the AO while carrying out the assessment.