TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay Kumar Mittal And Raj Rahul Garg, JJ. For the Appellant : Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate, with Divya Suri and Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocates For the Respondent : Rajesh Katoch, Advocate JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. CM No. 7425 CII of 2015 1. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 164 days in filing the appeal. 2. Notice of the application was given to the respondent. For the reasons stated in the application and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the delay of 164 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. I. T. A. No. 112 of 2015 3. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under section 260A of the Income-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee on December 5, 2008 and in compliance thereof, the appellant filed return of income on January 30, 2009 declaring an income of ₹ 1,49,250. Thereafter, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee on June 10, 2010. The Assessing Officer vide order dated December 30, 2010, annexure A.1 made addition of ₹ 5,25,000 on account of construction of the house and a sum of ₹ 9,95,029 on account of the difference in the capital reflected in the balance-sheet and computed the taxable income to be ₹ 16,69,280. Penalty proceedings were also ordered to be carried out. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). Vide ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ond the stipulated time period of six months. In view of this, the Assessing Officer did not have any jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon judgments in Asst. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC), Virendra Dev Dixit v. Asst. CIT [2011] 331 ITR 483 (All), CIT v. B. Satyanarayana [2013] 356 ITR 323 (AP), CIT v. Pratapbhai K. Soni [2014] 361 ITR 201 (Guj) and R. Romi v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 311 (Ker) to assail the order of the Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent besides supporting the impugned order relied upon the judgments in CIT v. Panchvati Motors P. Ltd. [2011] 243 CTR (P H) 189, CIT v. Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 367 ITR 517 (All), Ashok Chaddha v. ITO [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 158BB and the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143, section 144 and section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply. This is not the position under section 153A. The law laid down in Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC), is thus not applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision of Lunar Diamonds Ltd. [2006] 281 ITR 1 (Delhi), Vardhman Estate [2006] 287 ITR 368 (Delhi) and Bhan Textiles P. Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 370 (Delhi) relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee related to the requirement of service of notice upon the assessee within a prescribed time and thus not applicable to the present case. The case of Pawan Gupta [2009] 318 ITR 322 (Delhi) related to a mandatory issue of notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income. This clause nowhere prescribes for issuance of notice under section 143(2). Learned counsel for the assessee/ appellant sought to contend that the words, 'so far as may be applicable' made it mandatory for issuance of notice under section 143(2) since the return filed in response to a notice under section 153A was to be treated as one under section 139. Learned counsel relies upon R. Dalmia v. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 480 (SC) wherein the question of issue of notice under section 143(2) was examined with reference to section 148 by the Supreme Court in the context of section 147. The apex court held as under (page 488) : 'As to the argument based upon sections 144A, 246 and 263, we do not doubt that assessments under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient so as to give notice to the assessee, asking him to attend the office of the Assessing Officer in person or through a representative duly authorized in writing or produce or cause to be produced at the given time any documents, accounts, and any other evidence on which he may rely in support of the return filed by him. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement, we do not find any error or perversity in the approach of the Tribunal warranting interference by this court. 9. With regard to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, suffice it to notice that none of them was relating to applicability of requirement of issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed period thereun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
