Case Law Details
Balaji Enterprise Vs ACIT (ITAT Guwahati)
The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 by the ACIT, Investigation, Delhi, on the basis of CBI search. When the question of jurisdiction came before the Hon’ble High Court, it was held that where the assessee shifts his residence etc., the AO of the place where the assessee has shifted or otherwise will have jurisdiction and it is not necessary that in such case an order u/s 127 is required to be passed. While going through the decision, we note that there was also an order u/s 127 of the Act and the case was transferred to ITO, Ward 20, New Delhi. Thus, the case of S.S. Ahluwalia (supra) cannot be of any assistance to the Revenue.12. Coming back to the admitted facts in the present case, I hold that, without there being valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the framing of assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act by AO Gauhati is bad in law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT V Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (S.C) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that issue of a legally valid notice u/s. 143(2) is mandatory for usurping jurisdiction to frame scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act and absence of a valid notice u/s 143(2) is not a curable defect.
We uphold the objections raised by the appellant against the validity of the impugned order u/s 143(3) for AY 2011-12. We accordingly hold that since in the present case no valid notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the AO who held jurisdiction over the case of the appellant, the consequent order passed u/s 143(3) dated 24.03.2014 was legally unsustainable and therefore is null in the eyes of law and therefore quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Guwahati dated 17-09-2018 for assessment year 2011-12.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
ITA No.406/PUN/2020 Gourishankar Girdharilal
Lohiya (HUF) vs ACIT, Circle-1, Aurangabad vide order dated 26/05/2022 has held that non-issuance of a valid notice under section 143(2) the assessment itself held to be in valid