Roshan Lal Verma Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The validity of impugned assessment order resulting in present appeal is under challenge on the grounds of notice issued under Section 143(2) purportedly barred by limitation. It is the case of the assessee that, in the instant case, assessee has filed the return of income on 14.10.2011 and consequently in view of limitation period provided under Section 143(2) of the Act for framing assessment, the notice under Section 143(2) could not have been issued after 30th September, 2012. The notice under Section 143(2) in the instant case has been issued on 14.11.2012 which is beyond the time limit permissible under Section 143(2) of the Act. The second line of contention of behalf of the assessee is that the order in the instant case has been innocuously passed under Section 153B(1)(b) of the Act which is clearly bad in law owning to the fact that the Financial Year 2010-11 relevant to Assessment Year 2011-12 in question is the year of search which is not covered by the special provision of Section 153A of the Act. A reference was made to several judgments including the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 0362 (SC); PCIT vs. Consortium Nussli Comfort Net 2022 (3) TMI 1247-Delhi High Court.
In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon (supra), the Assessing Officer in the instant case has no jurisdiction to make assessment on the basis of belated notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. The defect, being substantive, is not curable under Section 292B of the Act. Section 292BB also does not apply as the notice issued under Section 143(2) itself has been issued after limitation period and merely served belatedly. The impugned assessment order culminated from a belated jurisdictional notice is thus nonest and deserves to be quashed.
