TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished. In the present case, the return of income was furnished by the assessee on 14.2.2008 and, therefore, notice u/s.143(2) (ii) of the Act could have been issued to the assessee on or before 28.2.2009. It is also not in dispute that notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 6.10.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice u/s.148 of the Act when time for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act has not expired before the issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2007-08 on 14.2.2008. The contention of the assesee is that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act could have been served on the assessee before expiry of 12 months from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l was right in coming to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer was barred from initiating reassessment proceedings under section 147 when the time for issuance of notice under section 143(2) had not expired. He also relied on the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.M.Pachayappan (2008) 304 ITR 264(Mad), wherein also, it was held that the Assessing Officer had issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished by the assessee on 14.2.2008 and, therefore, notice u/s.143(2) (ii) of the Act could have been issued to the assessee on or before 28.2.2009. It is also not in dispute that notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 6.10.2008, which was much prior to the expiry of time for issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. Therefore, the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is bad in law in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
