Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2009 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (11) TMI 689 - AT - Income TaxValidity of Assessment order - survey proceedings - AO issued notice u/s 142(1) - parallel proceedings during the pendency of assessment proceedings - information gathered during the course of survey and post survey investigation, the AO issued notice u/s 148 which the assessee was required to file the return of income within 20 days from the date of service of the notice - HELD THAT:- Power Under Section 142 was given to the AO for the purpose of making an assessment under the Income Tax Act. Section 142(1) starts with the wording 'for the purpose of making an assessment' under the Act, the Assessing Officer may serve on any person who has made a return or in whose case the time allowed under Sub-section (1) of Section 139 for furnishing the return has expired'. Thus, the proceedings Under Section 142(1) were initiated for the purpose of making an assessment. There is nothing on record to suggest that proceedings so initiated through notice Under Section 142(1) were either dropped or concluded. During the pendency of such proceedings, the AO has issued a notice Under Section 148. Before initiating proceedings Under Section 148, the AO has also issued a notice Under Section 142(1)(ii) vide which the AO called for certain details. Basically, such details can be asked only for the purpose of making an assessment. But the Assessing Officer cannot have jurisdiction Under Section 142(1) to call for the details unless the assessment proceedings or some other proceedings are pending. During the pendency of such assessment proceedings, the AO has initiated parallel proceedings Under Section 148 by issuing a notice Under Section 148. In the notice, the AO has mentioned that he is proposing to assess the assessee and require the assessee to file the return. Hence, it is not a case of re-assessment but a case of assessment. This impliedly suggests that proceedings initiated Under Section 142 were not concluded before the proceedings Under Section 148 were initiated. Notice Under Section 148 can be issued for making an assessment, re-assessment or re-computation. We are aware of the fact that in case the proceedings initiated Under Section 142 were dropped or concluded then it will mean the termination of the proceedings and the AO will assume jurisdiction Under Section 147 on the basis of information gathered during the course of survey. But no material was brought before us to say that the proceedings were dropped. Moreover, the survey has been conducted on 12th January, 2006. Notice Under Section 142(1) was issued on 18th October, 2006 i.e. after the date of survey. Hence, information gathered during the course of survey was available with the AO while issuing notice Under Section 142(1) on 18th October, 2006. Hence, after the survey, the assessment proceedings were still pending and during the pendency of such proceedings, the AO could not have issued the notice Under Section 148 of the IT Act. Assessing Officer intended to complete the assessment with reference to notice issued Under Section 148 of the IT Act. Hence, we are not agreeable to the contention of learned AR that the order should be read as passed Under Section 144 of the IT Act. Once it is held that the AO was not competent to initiate the parallel proceedings Under Section 148 then the assessment order passed in pursuance to such notice is invalid in the eye of law. Is that the AO has not issued a notice Under Section 143(2) after the assessee has filed the return? - return has been filed beyond the time limit prescribed Under Section 139(4) - Whether provisions of Section 139(4) can be imported into Section 148 to say that the return filed by the assessee beyond the period prescribed u/s 139(4) or beyond the period given by the AO vide notice u/s 148 is an invalid return? - HELD THAT:- The words used in Section 148 in respect of application of provisions of Section 139 is that "it shall apply so far as may be". The meaning of the words "so far as" has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, CITB v. Narayanaiah K 2.[1976 (8) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT] said that meaning of the words 'so far as they are applicable' used in Section 27 of the Bangalore Act, namely City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945, cannot be changed into 'in so far as they are specifically mentioned" with regard to the procedure in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These words bring in or making applicable, so far as this is reasonably possible, general provisions, such as, Section 23(1) of the Acquisition Act. They cannot be reasonably construed to exclude the application of any general provisions of the Acquisition Act. Hence, we have to consider the applicability of 139 to the extent, as it is applicable. It does not mean that the provisions of Section 139 will be squarely applicable. The Legislature could have used the word that the provisions of Section 139 will be applicable, but they have used the word 'so far as' in that section. Section 234A(3) mentions that interest can be charged u/s 234A when the return is furnished after the expiry of the time provided in the notice. It will end on the date of furnishing of the return. This, therefore, squarely suggest that an assessee can file a return beyond the time prescribed in the notice issued u/s 148. Section 144 can be invoked if the assessee fails to comply with all the terms of notice issued Under Section 142(1). In the instant case, the AO has mentioned that the assessee has filed certain information on various dates but failed to explain all the queries raised by the department. Hence, this is not a case where the assessee has failed to comply with all the terms of notice. The AO has considered the explanation given by the assessee. If an assessment is to be made u/s 143(3) then the AO can consider the evidence which has been filed by the assessee and may consider all relevant materials which he has gathered. From the assessment order it is clear that the AO has completed the assessment u/s 143(3). This is also clear from MoU of the assessment order. Before us, the learned AR has not filed any rectificatory order to suggest that the AO has-treated the assessment made as made u/s 144. Hence, we cannot treat the assessment as an assessment made u/s 144. Since the assessment has been made u/s 143(3) without issuing notice u/s 143(2) after the receipt of return in response to notice u/s 148, the assessment order is not valid on this ground. Hence we hold that the assessment order is void ab initio and therefore is cancelled. Since we are cancelling the assessment order, therefore, we are not adjudicating the additions made by the AOr on merits.
|