Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Mansukh Timbadia,, Raigad vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 22 July, 2022 cites

M/S. Ntpc Limited, New Delhi vs Addl. Cit, New Delhi on 4 May, 2022

4. The ld. AR, Smt. Hiral Sejpal submits that the assessee raised additional ground No. 1 questioning the validity of reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act is invalid for non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. She submits that the said additional ground purely raises a question of law and no facts are requires to be brought on record and prayed to admit the same and adjudicate the additional ground of appeal as preliminary issue and placed reliance in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Vs. CIT reported in 229 ITR 383 (SC). Upon hearing both the parties and as no objection as reported by the ld. DR, we proceed to adjudicate the additional ground raised by the assessee as preliminary issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 43 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Acit, Circle- 5(1), New Delhi vs Blue Coast Hotels Ltd., New Delhi on 2 March, 2021

5. The ld. AR drew our attention to the paper book containing 99 pages and submits that the assessee filed return of income on 27-12-2008 and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 15-02- 3 ITA Nos. 1713/PUN/2015 & 72/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2008-09 2010. The ld. AR drew our attention to the Page Nos. 32 and 34 of the paper book and argued that the AO issued the said notices both dated 01- 05-2013 and no notice issued subsequent to the letter dated 18-01-2014 filed by the assessee requesting the AO to treat the original return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. She argued that the AO failed to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act after filing of return of income vide letter dated 18-01-2014 by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory. Non-issuance of notice shall invalidate the reassessment made u/s. 147 of the Act. She referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321 ITR 362 (SC) and submits that omission on the part of assessing authority to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act cannot be procedural irregularity and the same is not curable, requirement of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act cannot be dispensed with.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. ( ... vs The Acit,Cent.Circle-1, Baroda on 8 April, 2021

Further, drew our attention to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in 32 taxmann.com 162 and submits that the notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory while adjudicating the assessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act and in the absence of which, the AO cannot proceed to make an inquiry on the return filed in compliance with the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. Further, she submits that the provisions u/s. 292BB are not applicable as it is a deeming section saves the AO in a case where the notice issued and there is a discrepancy as regards the service of the notice.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 121 - Cited by 61 - Full Document

Shri Rakesh Aggarwal, Jalandhar vs Income Tax Officer Ward-Iii(3), ... on 13 February, 2019

15-02-2010. Thereafter, on receipt of information the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 12-06-2012. The 5 ITA Nos. 1713/PUN/2015 & 72/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2008-09 contention of ld. DR is that the assessee required to file return of income or a letter requesting the AO to treat original return as return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, as the case may be, within 30 days from the date of receipt of said notice. Admittedly, there is no dispute with ld. AR that the assessee filed letter dated 18-01-2014 which is beyond 30 days from the receipt of service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, therefore, according to Ld. DR, no notice u/s. 143(2) is required to be issued in response to such letter, the AO treating the original return as on record, rightly issued notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) both dated 07-08-2012. We find, as relied by the Sri.S.S.Meena, Ld.DR, the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Rakesh Aggarwal (supra) vide Para No. 8 held the onus of filing of ROI on the assessee is a responsibility which is cast upon him to be fulfilled by him, if he fails to take benefit of any of the provisions of law, the assessee cannot plea that the notice u/s. 143(2) should have been issued. In the present case, the assessee filed a letter dated 18-01-2014 requesting to treat the original return of income as in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Since, the same is beyond specified time the AO cannot take cognizance of the same and proceeded with the assessment considering the notices issued u/sec 143(2)& 142(1) of the Act on 07-08-2012. Therefore, the contention of ld. AR that no notice u/s. 143(2) issued subsequent to the letter dated 18-01-2014 is not acceptable and rejected. Thus, the additional ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Home Finders Housing Lts. vs Income Tax Officer Corporate Ward 2(3) on 18 May, 2018

6. The ld. DR, Shri Sardar Singh Meena submits that the said assessment reopened on an intimation received from Central Circle and the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 12-06-2012 which was received by the assessee on 15-06-2012. The ld. DR drew our attention to the 4 ITA Nos. 1713/PUN/2015 & 72/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2008-09 provisions u/s. 148 of the Act and argued that the assessee required to file the return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act in prescribed time i.e. within 30 days. The ld. DR drew our attention to the chronology of events and submits that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 12-06-2002 and the assessee has to file return within 30 days i.e. 12-07- 2012. The assessee did not file any return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 but the AO issued notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1() both dated 07- 08-2012 and passed assessment order on 18-03-2014. He argued that if the assessee does not file return of income within 30 days and request the AO to treat the original return as in response to notice u/s. 148 beyond 30 days, the AO has to treat that no ROI filed. The ld. DR drew our attention to the letter dated 18-01-2014 and argued that the assessee requested the AO to treat the original ROI dated 30-12-2008 to be the ROI in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act which is beyond 30 days from the date of service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and no requirement of issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act is required in response to such letter dt:18-01-2014, the assessee is not entitled to raise non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The ld. DR placed reliance on the order of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Rakesh Aggarwal Vs. ITO in MA 249/DEL/2020 in ITA No. 2461/DEL/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 15-12-2020 and a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 404 ITR 611(Mad.).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

Conwood Realty P. Ltd., Mumbai vs Dy Cit -Circle-12(1)(2), Mumbai on 26 October, 2021

13. Smt. Sezpal argued that the AO failed to examine the transaction with M/s. Krupa Land Pvt. Ltd. to substantiate his stand or to ascertain whether the cash payments were made or not. The AO did not examine the said Dilip Dherai on his retraction and did not provide opportunity for cross-examination. She referred to Annexure 2 of paper book filed by the Revenue and submits that the said piece of loose papers containing certain notings represents rough estimates or scribbling which is to be regarded as dumb documents. The AO did not make any effort to obtain any evidence to substantiate the notings in the said dumb documents. The said Annexure 2 is alleged cash flow statement and no reference as to assessee nor the period of transaction is reflected. Further, she referred to Annexure 3 at Page Nos. 2 and 3 which is considered by the Mumbai Tribunal in the batch of cases, lead case being M/s. Avkash Land Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 8237/Mum/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 vide order dated 22-03-2013, held that the seized material are merely projected and budgeted expenditure to be incurred and did not reveal anything which proves cash expenditure as alleged by the AO. Further, she referred the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Shri Dilip V. Dherai in ITA Nos. 1459 to 1461/Mum/2012 vide order dated 31-07-2013, held that the entries found on loose sheet papers are only estimates/budgetary figures are not supported by actual cash passing hands. She argued the addition 9 ITA Nos. 1713/PUN/2015 & 72/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2008-09 made in the hands of the assessee are based on seized loose papers and no other supporting evidence brought on record by the AO to show that the huge amount of such magnitude received by the assessee. The said Annexure 3 was not seized from assessee and the said Dilip Dherai was no way concerned with the assessee. Regarding Annexure 4, she submits that there has been no transaction between Dilip Dherai and assessee on 30-12-2008, no date and signature by the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998

In the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) held unsubstantiated loose sheet 15 ITA Nos. 1713/PUN/2015 & 72/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2008-09 cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any addition towards undisclosed income. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the file containing loose sheets of papers are not books and hence entries therein are not admissible u/s. 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 551 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document
1