Case Law Details
RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS:
8. We have considered he submissions made by both the sides, material on record and orders of the authorities below. We find that the question, before US, is whether limited scrutiny proceedings and regular scrutiny proceedings are independent of each other or not and, therefore, notice issued for limited scrutiny into a regular scrutiny where time to issue notice u/s 143(2)(ii) has expired or not. We find that Legislature introduced limited scrutiny for a limited period and provided for requirement of issue of notice therefore independently where in the Assessing Officer was required to specify the specify nature of inquiry whereas the provisions of regular scrutiny and time limit to issue notice for that purpose were already on statute. We further find that the provisions of section 143(2) provided that no notice under this sub-section could be served on the assessee after the expiry of notice under this sub-section could be served on the assessee after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished and, therefore, as per this proviso, both Notices u/s 143(2)(i) or 143(2)(ii) are to be issued within such specified time. We are further of the view that the provisions of section are clear regarding the issuance of notice for both types of scrutinizes independently and limit has also been prescribed for issuance of Notice u/s 143(2) for both types of scrutiny proceedings. Hence, we are unable to agree with the contention of the revenue that notice issued u/s 143(2)(i) can by itself extend the time for the issuance of Notice u/s 143(2)(ii), hence, for this reason, we hold that the Notice issued u/s 143(2)(ii) on 28-7-2003 is time barred and consequently, the assessment completed u/s 143(3)(ii) is also null and void. According, we quash the same. Thus, the additional ground, filed by the assessee, is accepted.
