Case Law Details
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore)
The ITAT Bangalore has quashed the assessment order in the case of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences against ACIT. The grounds for invalidation were the non-service of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act.
Specific ground raised by the assessee, relates to the non-service of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act.
The ITAT Bangalore examined the assessment records and found no noting for the issuance of the notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The article emphasizes that in the absence of valid notice, the assessment order is set aside based on the judicial pronouncements cited by the assessee. It further notes that the issue of non-service of notice was brought to the attention of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings but was not addressed in the assessment order or by the CIT(A).
ITAT Bangalore quashed the assessment order for invalidation due to non-service of a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 11.11.2022 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). The relevant assessment year is 2013-2014.
2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee has raised grounds stating that the assessment completed is not valid, since the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has not been duly served on the assessee. The ground pertaining to the above legal issue reads as follows:-
“2.1 The learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in not adjudicating the Additional Ground of Appeal raised on the issue of non service of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act by the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The action of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi being in gross violation of principles of natural justice, is to be negated.
2.2 The pre requisite / condition for assessment to be valid being service of the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act by the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer having not been complied with makes the impugned assessment order bad in law and the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi should have set aside the assessment order on this ground alone. The impugned assessment order being bad in law, is to be quashed.”
3. The Registrar of the assessee-society had filed an affidavit stating therein that the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has never been served on the assessee and this fact was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings vide assessee’s letter dated 15.03.2016. The learned AR submitted that since there is no service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the impugned assessment order passed has to be quashed. In this context, the learned AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements:-
(i) CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC)
(iii) CIT v. Laxmandas Khandelwal 108 com 183 (SC)
(iii) Arwa Hararwala v. ITO in ITA No.01/Bang/20 (order dated 20.12.2021)
4. The learned Departmental Representative was asked to produce the assessment records, which the learned DR duly complied with.
5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have elaborately gone through the assessment records and the order sheet noting of the A.O. We have not found any noting for the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we have to accept the assessee’s contention that there is no service of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, and therefore, the assessment order is to be set aside on this ground alone. In holding so, we rely on the judicial pronouncements relied on by the assessee. It is also a fact that the assessee has brought to the notice of the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings that there was no service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. However, the A.O. has not addressed this issue in the assessment order. Further, before the CIT(A), the assessee has taken up the ground that there was no service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. However, there was no adjudication on the ground raised by the assessee. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are constrained to set aside the assessment order, since there is no valid service of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Hence, the legal ground raised, namely, grounds 2.1 and 2.2 are allowed.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on this 16th day of May, 2023.
