Case Law Details
DCIT Vs K.M. Nagaraj (ITAT Bangalore)
The only mistake on the part of the AO is in mentioning section 153A instead of 153C. In the facts of the preset case, the provisions of section 292B clearly come into play. Under the provisions of section 292B, certain acts are not to be treated as invalid by reason of mistake or defect or omission either in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings. In other words, notice cannot be invalidated by reason of any mistake such as one occurred in the present case i.e. mentioning section 153A instead of 153C. If this mistake is not allowed to be cured, the very purpose and object of enacting the provisions of section 292B is defeated.
This being the intent and purpose of the provisions contained in section 153A and 153C, stands satisfied if the notice is responded and the assessee has participated in the assessment proceedings. The fact that wrong section was mentioned in the notice does not invalid the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto. In the present case, had the respondent-assessee not responded to notice and had raised such grounds of challenge, perhaps it would have been a different case altogether. But having respondent, participated in the proceedings, respondent-assessee cannot be allowed to turn around or raise objections for the first time before the CIT(A) seeking invalidation of the proceedings initiated by issuing notice u/s 153A instead of 153C.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
These are appeals filed by the revenue directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-VI, Bengaluru, dated 14/06/20 13 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
