TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the assessee. - ITA Nos. 1483 & 1484/Del/2019 - - - Dated:- 20-2-2020 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocate Sh. Shayam Sunder, Advocate For the Department : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the different orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi on 10.09.2018 07.9.2018 respectively in relation to the assessment years 2009-10 2010-11. At the time of filing the present appeals the assessee has raised various grounds on legal issue as well as on merits. But on 18.02.2020, Assessee has filed an Application for raising additional grounds of appeal in both the appeals. For the sake of convenience, the additional grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in framing the impugned reassessment order and that too without serving the mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) as per law. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch has strongly been opposed by the Ld. DR, but in the interest of justice, I am of the view that no one can be debarred from filing the appeal which is a statutory right of the assessee only because the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 49 days. In the interest of justice, I am of the view that the delay of 49 days in filing the present appeals deserve to be condoned, therefore, I condone the delay of 49 days in both the appeals and admit both the appeals for adjudication on the basis of the original grounds raised by the assessee as well as the additional grounds raised by the assessee. 6. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has only argued additional ground no. 1 and stated that assessee has filed the original return declaring NIL income which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act. But later, on the information received from the office of the Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II), New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi, the case of the assessee was reopened by the Assessing Officer by issuing the notice dated 28.3.2016 u/s. 148 of the Act with the approval of the competent authority requiring the assessee to furnish its return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itional ground raised by the assessee has not been raised before the Ld. CIT(A), may not be admitted. He has also filed some written submissions dated 18.2.2020 to controvert the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and finally stated that appeal filed by the assessee may be dismissed because a well reasoned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A). 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities alongwith written submissions filed by both the parties and the contentions raised by the assessee in the additional ground No.1 which is purely legal in nature, as argued by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the contention raised in the additional ground no. 1 which is legal in nature raised by the assessee alongwith order passed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court and the Tribunals adjudicating the similar issues involved in the additional ground of appeal. In view of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India decision in the case of NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), I admit the additional ground no. 1, as argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, as aforesaid and first adjudicate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 249 (Del.) dated 13.4.2010 (Supra) and various orders passed by the ITAT, Delhi Benches, copies thereof has been filed by the assessee in the shape of paper book containing pages 1- 222 including the order passed by the ITAT, Delhi SMC Bench dated 14.5.2018 in the case of Micron Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 901/Del/2016 (AY 2006-07). The relevant portion of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Micron Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. i.e. para no. 2 to 9 at page no. 2 to 9 are reproduced as under:- 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that assessee is a company filed return of income declaring NIL income. The case was subsequently reopened under section 147 of the I.T. Act, after recording reasons and notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act, was issued on 29th March, 2013. Reply to the notice under section 148 of the Act has been filed by assessee on 26.11.2013. Notice under section 143(2) was issued on the same day on 26.11.2013 in response to which, assessee-company appeared and the A.O. after discussion made the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs on account of unexplained investment under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.02.2014 under section 147 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (2010) 323 ITR 249 (Del.) in which it was held as under : Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have returned a concurrent and clear finding of fact that the notice under s. 143(2) was issued on 23rdMarch, 2000 and since the return was filed on 27thMarch, 2000, the notice was not a valid one and, therefore, the assessment completed on the basis of the notice was also invalid and was consequently set aside. It is for the first time that the counsel for the appellant contends that the notice, in fact, was issued on 27thMarch, 2000 and not on 23rdMarch, 2000, the date which is recorded on the notice itself. No such contention was raised before the lower appellate authorities. Consequently, the said contention cannot be raised before the Court for the first time. The appellant has stated that the return was filed by the assessee on 27thMarch, 2000 and the notice under s. 143(2) was served upon the Authorized Representative of the assessee by hand when the Authorized Representative of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.11.2013 and submitted before A.O. that original return filed before him may be treated as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. on the same day served notice under section 143(2) upon assessee-company whose signature tally on the said notice. Therefore, notice issued under section 143(2) is invalid and resultantly, the assessment is vitiated and is liable to be quashed. I, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and quash the re-assessment proceedings in the matter. Resultantly, all additions stands deleted. In view of the above, there is no need to decide other contentions raised by Learned Counsel for the Assessee. 9. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 9. I have gone through the contention raised by the assessee in its written submissions, legal additional ground no.1 raised by the assesse which is legal in nature challenging the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act issued on 21.6.2016 i.e. on the same date when the assesee appeared before the AO and filed a letter dated 21.6.2016 stating therein that the return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act may be treated as return filed in response to the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
