Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 689 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTValidity of notice issued u/s 158BC - Whether the notice issued u/s 158BC is invalid for non-mentioning of the block period in respect of which the said notice is issued – Held that:- In the notice issued u/s 158BC, the time granted to the assessee to file return, was less than 15 days - when the statute specifically prescribes 15 days’ time as the minimum and 45 days as the maximum, if the requirement of law is not complied with, the notice is defective and it is not curable one u/s 292B of the Act – relying upon Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Versus M/s. Hotel Blue Moon [2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - after service of notice the assessee promptly engaged a Chartered Accountant, who is fully aware of the meaning of the word ‘block period’ - Within the time prescribed he filed NIL returns on 06.03.1988 - Therefore the assessee had no doubt in his mind what he is expected to do in law and there was no breach to any extent in non-mentioning of the block period in the notice issued to him - it is not the requirement of law that in a notice issued u/s 158BC, the period of block period is to be specifically mentioned by the authorities - If it is not mentioned, it would not invalidate the notice - Section 292B to be attracted, the condition precedent is, there should be a defect in the notice - If the notice is not defective at all, the question of validating the said mistake by recourse to Section 292B would not arise – Decided against assessee.
|