Case Law Details
Case Name : Shri Sanjay Badani Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All ITAT ITAT Mumbai
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
In these stay applications, the assessee has basically argued legality of the assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 in view of the fact that there was no service of notice u/s.143(2). It was contended by learned AR that in respect to notice u/s.148 dated 30-8-2011, the assessee has filed return of income on 10-10-2011. The statutory time limit to serve notice u/s.143(2) was till 30-9-2012, ie. six months from end of the financial year in which return was furnished. As per learned AR no notice u/s.143(2) has ever been issued and served on the assessee before com
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
officers should take note of such important decisions, to ensure fault free work.
officers should take note of such important decisions.
It is a thought provoking decision for revenue. This is how officers in department do not care for the legal issues before passing assessment orders. In this decision, there is somewhere mention about the RTI Application filed by the assessee to find out issue and service of notice u/s 143(2), it could have been better if Hon. bench could have reproduced the same. It seems that objection of AR that issue of notice is not proper has not been disposed in detail and matter has been decided due to failure in service rather than failure in issue.
Department loses 50% of the cases due to legal failures