TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apparent that the reasons were not recorded at the time of issue of notice - the date of notice is 30-1-2004 and the reasons recorded are clearly dated 4-2-2004, i.e., the reasons are not recorded before the issue of notice but afterwards, the assumption of jurisdiction is clearly bad - The Tribunal noted that notice was issued even before the reasons were recorded – there is no reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal – Decided against Revenue. - ITA Nos.703/2007, 704/2007, 705/2007, 706/2007, 708/2007, 709/2007 And 710/2007 - - - Dated:- 18-3-2014 - S C Dharmadhikari and G S Kulkarni, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri K V Aravind, Adv. For the Respondent : Sri A Shankar Sri M Lava, Advs. JUDGEMENT Per: Dilip B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e it to say that the record reveals, in the first 7 appeals the total liability of tax does not exceed Rs.23,00,000/- whereas in the remaining appeals, the total tax liability is about Rs.18,00,000/-. Out of the 13 appeals, in 5 appeals the tax liability is NIL and in 2 appeals, the tax liability is less than Rs.10,00,000/- 3. In this backdrop, the Revenue has raised the following substantial question of law, which is common in all the appeals: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) without recording reasons as contemplated by sub-Section (2) of Section 148 of the Act would vitiate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey got a copy of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer only when the matter was carried in appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The moment they got a copy of the reasons, they raised objections before the CIT (Appeals) stating that the reasons were not recorded before issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. The CIT(Appeals) however brushed aside the objection holding that there was a typographical error in respect of the date of reasons recorded under Section 148(2) of the Act. Mr. Shankar submitted that, similar objection was raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after having perused the original records, has rightly observed that the reasons were recorded after issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. 6. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nuary 2004. It was not signed by the Assessing Officer. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were typed, as is clear from the printout of the original reasons, on 4-2-2004. The typed dated was struck off with pen and the date 30-01- 2004 was written by hand with the same pen. Though the original date (typed) was struck off with pen still the typed date is visible/could be read or is clearly seen, and it was typed as 4-2-2004. Before the Tribunal a controversy was raised that the print out of the reasons was computer generated and it was printed with the date of printing automatically by the Computer. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the typed date or the date of print out was 4-2-2004 and that it was changed to 30-1-2004 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instant case. The computer print out apparently generated the date on which the reasons recorded were printed out. Even going by the proposition that the print could have been later on and there could have been some material, which would have been written up in hand to suggest that the reasons were in fact recorded on 30-1-2004, the Department failed to produce such a document. Since the Department produced the original print out copy by the computer of the reasons recorded which are identical as are filed by the assessee before us containing identical correction by hand with no signature on the correction, it is apparent that the reasons were not recorded at the time of issue of notice. The Department was therefore asked to make submissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
