CA Prarthana Jalan
Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench has in the case of M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v/s DCIT in IT(SS)A No. 16/Hyd/2011 has held that Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would operate prospectively as it curtails the right of the assessee.
Assessee submitted that the CIT(A) erred in holding that the provisions of section 292BB of the Act apply to the facts of the case and hence the assessment is in order, without considering the fact that the assessment is null and void for not issuing notice u/s. 143(2) in time. It was submitted that the provisions of section 292BB are prospective and the CIT(A) having accepted factual position that the notice u/s. 143(2) was issued beyond 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed, the CIT(A)should have noted that the assessment made was invalid.
Since the provisions of section 292BB curtails the right of the assessee it was held by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 117 ITD 273 that section 292BB would operate prospectively. Therefore, section 292BB will not apply to the notice issued on 29.4.2003 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 158BC of the Act. Further, in the case of CIT vs. Mr. Salman Khan in ITA(L) No. 2362 of 2009, the Bombay High Court held as under:
Held – Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mr. Salman Khan in ITA(L) No. 2362 of 2009, we hold that the order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable as the provisions of s. 292BB cannot be invoked for the relevant period. As the notice u/s. 143(2) was served beyond the time limit prescribed by the Act, the subsequent scrutiny proceedings are null and void.