TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons for reopening the assessment. In reply, the AO stated that assessee may examine the case records for this purpose. Thereafter the AO issued a notice under s. 142(1) on 29th Feb., 1996. The assessee had constructed a house property and the cost of construction was shown at Rs. 1,93,558. The AO referred the property to valuation cell of the Department for ascertaining the cost of construction, who determined the cost at Rs. 3,53,000. By relying on the report of Valuation Officer, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,59,442 being unexplained investment in the house property and completed the assessment under s. 144 r/w s. 148 on 25th March, 1996. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal where inter alia the validity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder is, therefore, set aside for reframing and the AO will proceed further from para No. 6 of the assessment order and reframe the remaining part of the order, i.e. starting from para 6 of the assessment order in view of the aforesaid." Assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A). Hence, this appeal before us. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. He submitted that in this case notice under s. 148 was issued on 23rd Sept., 1993. Thereafter, notices under s. 142(1) along with 143(2) were issued on 29th Feb., 1996 i.e. beyond the time allowed of 6 months or before the end of financial year from the end of month in which return was filed. He submitted that in response to not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled earlier on 19th Nov., 1990 may be treated to have been filed in response to notice under s. 148. Such course of action on the part of assessee was perfectly legal and valid and the judgment of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Tiwari Kanhaiya Lal vs. CIT (1985) 47 CTR (Raj) 187 : (1985) 154 ITR 109 (Raj) also supports this view. Thus, issue of notice under s. 142(1)/143(2) within the prescribed limit fixed under the Act was mandatory. But, in this case, the AO has issued the notice under s. 143(2)/142(1) on 28th Feb., 1996, i.e., beyond the time allowed under the Act. This view finds support from the decision of Tribunal, Agra Bench in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Baikunth Nath Singhal. Thus, we are of the considered opinion th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the assessment order. The learned CIT(A) has not decided this ground on merits as he has merely set aside the assessment. Relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 : (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC) the learned counsel has submitted that interest charged under s. 234B without there being specific direction in the body of assessment order was illegal and bad in law. The contention of the learned counsel is correct. The AO has not issued any specific direction in the body of the order. Therefore, interest charged is bad in law in view of the judgment of Hon ble apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. Even otherwise we have annulled the assessment order. Therefore, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
