Pradip Chandra Roy Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
ITAT Kolkata held that reassessment order quashed since notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served after the date of limitation. Since issuance of notice is bad in law, consequent orders is liable to be quashed.
Facts- The assessee, a retired person of Group-D staff of PWD Department, Government of West Bengal. AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act on 29.08.2016 on the basis that the Department was in possession of information regarding transaction made by the assessee in immovable property in the F.Y. 2013-14. Notably, even after various reminders the assessee did not make any compliance and a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.01.2021 was issued. AO had assessed the appellant by considering the entire stamp duty value of the sold property for Rs. 16,83,600/-. Instead of considering 66.67% value an amount of Rs. 16,83,600/- is treated as undisclosed capital gain u/s 148 of the Act.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as there was no response on behalf of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that it is apparent from the assessment order that the ld. AO had signed the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 but did not issue the same although the ld. AO had stated in his order that the notice was issued by him on 31.03.2021 but at the same time, the ld. AO had stated that as there was no e-mail address registered in the e-filing portal, the notice was served on the assessee on 28.12.2021. Hence, in our view, the notice was issued on 28.12.2021, much after the date of the limitation and accordingly, the issuance of notice is also bad in law. Since issuance of notice is bad in law, hence, all the consequent orders passed thereafter has no legal force and accordingly set aside.
