Income Tax : Tribunal held that an assessment is void when the competent officer does not issue the mandatory notice. Jurisdiction cannot arise...
Income Tax : Understand the three core processes of Indian Income Tax: Rectification of mistakes (Sec 154), the four types of Assessment (Summa...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence ...
Income Tax : ITAT held that reassessment without issuing notice under Section 143(2) is invalid, even if return was filed late. The ruling emph...
Income Tax : Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that reassessment proceedings initiated against a dead person are void in law. A valid notice must be issued to...
Income Tax : While deleting the interest disallowance on merits, the Tribunal remanded the brought-forward loss issue for limited verification....
Failure to comply with section 143(2) by the competent Assessing Officer invalidates the assessment. The decision underscores strict adherence to jurisdictional requirements under the Act.
ITAT Chennai held that section 197(b) of the Finance Act, 2016 cannot be invoked since Form 2 as contemplated under Income Declaration Scheme not served. Accordingly, addition u/s. 69A made in assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 liable to be deleted.
The issue was whether an assessment could survive when the scrutiny notice was not issued in the CBDT-prescribed e-format. The Tribunal held the notice invalid and quashed the entire assessment as void.
The decision reiterates that once the assessees death is known, proceedings must restart with a valid notice to the legal heir. Failure to do so makes the assessment unsustainable.
The Tribunal examined whether Section 153A could be applied to the search year itself. It held that invoking Section 153A for the wrong assessment year was invalid, rendering the assessment void.
The Tribunal distinguished cases of jurisdictional defect and upheld the assessment where the initial notice was lawfully issued. The key takeaway is continuity of valid scrutiny proceedings despite AO change.
The issue was whether reassessment is valid when reasons for reopening are not placed on record. The Tribunal held that non-recording of reasons under Section 148(2) vitiates jurisdiction, rendering the reassessment void.
The Tribunal clarified that section 292BB only cures defects in service of notice, not complete absence of a valid jurisdictional notice. Participation in proceedings cannot validate an assessment initiated by an incompetent authority.
The issue was whether reassessment remains valid when no Section 143(2) notice is issued after a return is filed in response to Section 148. ITAT held such reassessment void, confirming that Section 143(2) is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
Since the statutory notice under section 143(2) was issued by a non-jurisdictional officer, the assessment collapsed. The ruling affirms that valid notice by the competent authority is a sine qua non.
