TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -3-2019 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. SHRI O.P. KANT, A.M. For the Appellant : Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. D.R ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi, dated 19th February 2018, for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. Briefly the facts of the case of that assessee filed return of income declaring income of ₹ 2.42 crores on 10th August 2010. The case was reopened under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 20th March 2015. The reasons for reopening of assessment recorded were conveyed to the assessee. In response to the notice under section 148 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was loss of ₹ 1,84,99,541/- which the assessee has booked and which needs to be added to the total income of the assessee. The assessing officer after considering explanation of assessee made the above addition to the returned income. 3. The assessee challenged the addition before Ld. CIT(A), initiation of reassessment proceedings and that no notice under section 143(2) have been issued within the time, therefore assessment is time barred and shall have to be set aside. The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed the appeal of assessee. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset submitted that the copy of the notice under section 148 dated 20th March 2015 is filed at page 20 of the paper book. The assessee filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i High Court. 6. Alpine Electronics Asia PTE Ltd. v. Director General Of Income Ta Others, [2012] 341 ITR 247, Delhi High Court. 7. Pr.CIT v. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., ITA No. 887/2017 888/2017 dt. 24.10.2017, Delhi High Court 8. Asst. CIT v. M/s. Hotel Blue Moon, [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC). 9. Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO, W.P. (c) 11255/2017, CM No.46017/2017, dt. 19.11.2018 10. Pr. CIT v. Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 896/2017 899/2017 dt. 27.10.2017, Delhi High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., (supra) has distinguished the Judgment relied upon by the Learned Departmental Representative in the case of CIT vs. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd., (supra) as well as decided the submissions of the Departmental Representative against the Revenue. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. It is not in dispute that assessee filed original return of income on 11th August 2010. It is also not in dispute that notice under section 148 was issued to assessee on 20th March 2015. It is also not in dispute that assessee, in response to notice under section 148 filed letter before assessing officer on 25th March 2015 submitting therein that original return filed on 11th August 2010 may please be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 148 of the Income Tax Act shall be deemed to be furnished on 25th March 2015. According to the above proviso to Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, no notice in this Section shall be served upon the assessee after expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished which would expire on 30th September 2015. However, in the present case, notice under section 143(2) have been issued on 9th February 2016. In the case of Indus Towers Ltd., vs. Dy. CIT (supra), the Hon ble Delhi High Court held that delay in issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, would be fatal to the reassessment proceedings. The above Judgment has been confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court by dismissing the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
