Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 769 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay of 132 days - As submitted assessee was seriously ill and was undergoing medical treatment from 5.6.2019 and was advised complete bed rest by the doctor and, therefore, he was unable to do his normal activities - HELD THAT:- There can be no presumption of deliberateness or negligence or mala fides in case of delay, because litigants run a serious risk without any benefit by the delay. The judiciary is respected not for legalizing injustice on technical grounds but for removing injustice. We find that the assessee had reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst Katiji [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] we condone the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for hearing. Reopening of assessment u/s.147 - Reassessment proceedings u/s.147 before expiry of limitation period for issuing notice u/s.143(2) - Undisclosed investment - value disclosed in the Registered Sale Deed when there was no such transaction - HELD THAT:- Unless the return filed by the assessee is scrutinized by the AO by way of issuing notice u/s.143(2) he cannot come to the conclusion of any escapement of income by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. If the AO issues notice u/s.143(2) obviously, he would scrutinize the return and frame the assessment u/s.143(3) and, thereafter, original assessment proceedings would be closed or terminated. Subsequently, if the AO notice escapement of income, on the basis of some new tangible material, which was not before him during original assessment proceedings, then he has reason to believe that there is escapement of assessment and he may assume valid jurisdiction for initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 and issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Assessment proceedings are deemed to be over or terminated when (a) the return is processed u/s.143(1) of the Act or (b) scrutiny assessment order is framed u/s.143(3) of the Act or (c) the time limit for issue of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is expired and thereby the assessment is no longer possible 143(3) of the Act. Thus, the assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act can be initiated only after the earlier assessment proceedings are terminated by way of any of the one of the three modes as noted above. We are convinced that the contention advanced by ld D.R. that even if the prescribed time for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) was not expired, the AO was having valid jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act is not correct, therefore, we dismiss the same. Our above noted judicious conclusion also gets strong support from the order of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Sri Venkata Shiva Reddy[2017 (11) TMI 1475 - ITAT HYDERABAD] Since, undoubtedly, the time limit for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) for assessment year 2014-15 was to be expired on 30.9.2016 and prior to that on 25.1.2016, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act after initiating reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, i.e. before expiry of limitation period for issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. Therefore, we are compelled to hold that the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, notice u/s.148 of the Act, and all consequent proceedings and orders including the reassessment order u/s.144/147 of the Act passed on 19.12.2016 in pursuance to the notice u/s.148 of the Act and impugned first appellate order are also bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|