Case Law Details
Simranpal Singh Suri Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion: When the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to assesseee on the very same day on which assessee filed the return in response to notice u/s 148 stating that the return already filed may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148, such notice issued u/s 143(2) on the very same day had to be treated as invalid and assessment was vitiated due to non-application of mind by the AO.
Held: Assessee-individual was engaged in the business of civil works contracts. In this case, information was available on ITD System regarding cash deposits of Rs.14,52,000/- in IDBI Bank account. AO, on the ground that no return for the year under consideration was filed, reopened the assessment u/s 147 after obtaining necessary administrative approval of the PCIT. It was held that assessee had filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30th March, 2011, vide receipt No.0000014393. It was seen that AO had recorded a wrong fact in his reasons that assessee had not filed the return of income. Moreso, notice u/s 143(2) was issued to assessee on the very same day on which assessee appeared and furnished copy of ITR in response to notice u/s 148. It has been held in various decisions that when the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to assesseee on the very same day on which assessee filed the return in response to notice u/s 148 stating that the return already filed may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148, such notice issued u/s 143(2) on the very same day had to be treated as invalid and assessment was vitiated due to non-application of mind by the AO. Therefore, on all counts the reassessment proceedings initiated by AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was not in accordance with the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
