Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 207 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - Validity of original assessment order since the notice u/s 143(2) was issued prior to issue of notice u/s 148 - unsecured loans received by the assessee from various companies - HELD THAT:- We hold that the order passed u/s. 263 19/03/2019, as bad in law. It is wrong both on facts as well as law. Enquiries were made by the AO and the AO on such enquiries has taken a possible view. The very reason for reopening is the ground for proposing the revision. This is not permissible in law. As regards the arguments of the assessee that the validity of the reassessment proceedings can be challenged during the course of challenging the revisionary order u/s. 263 we are of the opinion that law is in the favour of such arguments. Jurisdictional issue, can be raised even in collateral proceedings. At the same time, we are unable to uphold the contention of the assessee that the reassessment order itself would become bad in law, if the reason recorded for reopening does not ultimately result in an addition being made by the Assessing Officer. No addition has been made in this case. What the Courts of law have said on this issue is that, if an addition is not made for the reasons which are recorded for reopening of the assessment, no other addition can be made on some other grounds which do not form part of the reasons recorded for reopening. If an Assessing Officer accepts the return of income of the assessee on reopening of an assessment, such assessment order does not become an illegal assessment order. The Courts never said that the reassessment order would be bad in law. Thus, this argument of the assessee is dismissed as devoid of merit. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued to the assessee on 24/02/2016 as is evident from the copy of the notice place at page 6 of the paper book. From the order sheet entry it is clear that the assessee, on 24/03/2016, requested the Assessing Officer to treat the original return of income filed by it for the Assessment Year 2009-10, as that return of income which is filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. From the order sheet entries, it is clear that notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24/02/2016. This fact is also mentioned by the Assessing Officer at para 5 of his order. This proves that the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, was issued much prior to the assessee filing his return of income. This is not in accordance with law. Hence the order passed u/s. 148 of the Act without issuing valid notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, makes the reassessment order dt. 20/05/2016, passed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act, bad in law. Consequently, the revision of the assessment u/s. 263 of the Act dt. 19/03/2019, revising such illegal assessment order is also bad in law. Thus, for all these reasons we quash the order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act as bad in law and allow the appeal of the assessee.
|