TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote recorded by the AO wherein the AO proposed to issue notice u/s. 153C - the initiation of proceedings u/s.153C in the case of the assessee who is the person searched is not valid. It is not out of place to mention that any defects in notices u/s. 153A / 153C of the Act, whereby the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction, are not curable U/s. 292BB of the Act even though the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings without objection. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that in the instant case, since the issue of notice U/s. 153C is invalid and consequently, the assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C is bad in law and void ab initio. Assessee appeal allowed. Salary income - Perquisites - Addition u/s. 17(2)(v) towards insurance premium paid by the employer - whether premium paid by the employer on the policy taken on the life of the employee / assessee is a taxable perquisite as defined u/s. 17(2)(v) of the Act or not? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the policy is taken by the employer in the name of the employee and cannot be assigned in the name of the employer in a future date. The insurance policy is taken by the employer to protect the interests of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from 15/3/2020 till 28/2/2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Further, para 5(III) of the order reads as under:- In cases where the limitation would have expire during the period between 15/3/2020 till 28/2/2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01/03/2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 1/3/2022 is greater than 90 days that longer period shall apply. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the appellant s case, the time limit available for filing of appeal is 90 days from 28/2/2022 i.e., till 29/5/2022. Hence considering the decision of the Apex Court, the Hon ble ITAT is requested to kindly condone the delay, otherwise would cause unduly hardship to the appellant. 3. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the delay in all the appeals may kindly be condoned considering the directions of the Hon ble Apex Court. 4. On perusal of the contents of the condonation petition filed by the assessee as we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The notice issued U/s. 153C of the Act is invalid. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 9,92,856/- made by the Assessing Officer U/s. 17(2)(v) of the Act towards insurance premium paid by the employer. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing. 8. Further, the assessee also raised the additional legal ground as below: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the notice dated 21/3/2019 issued U/s. 153C of the Act is liable to be quashed as invalid and consequently whether the assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed as void-ab-initio. 9. At the outset, the Ld. AR argued that the Ld. AO has issued a notice U/s. 153C of the Act instead of issuing notice U/s. 153A of the Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that since the assessee s premises was also subjected to search, the Ld. AO ought to have issued notice U/s. 153A of the Act. The Ld. AR further invited our attention to the notice issued U/s. 153C of the Act placed in paper book page 13. The Ld. AR therefore submitted that the assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it can be safely concluded that in the instant case, since the issue of notice U/s. 153C is invalid and consequently, the assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C is bad in law and void ab initio. The decision quoted by the Ld. DR is distinguishable on the facts, although in that case the heading of the said notice proposed to assess the assessee s income U/s. 153A of the Act but the contents of the notice contains the proposal to assess the assessee s income U/s. 153C of the Act. However, in the instant case, not only the heading of the notice but also the contents of the notice proposed to assess the assessee s income U/s. 153C of the Act. We therefore are of the considered view that this decision cannot be applied to the instant case. We are therefore inclined to quash the assessment order passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act considering it void ab initio. 11. The other grounds raised by the assessee are academic in nature since the legal ground raised by the assessee is adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed . 13. With respect to ITA Nos. 34 to 37/Viz/2022 (AY: 2014-15 to 2017-18), since the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Employer Employee Scheme (EES). The Ld. AO considered the premium paid by the company on the life of the assessee as a taxable perquisite in the hands of the assessee and added it to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) contesting the additions of Rs 16,00,000/- and Rs 8,43,632/-. Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us and raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 8,43,632/- made by the Assessing Officer U/s. 17(2)(v) of the Act towards insurance premium paid by the employer. 3. (a) The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 16,00,000 made by the assessing Officer towards unexplained amount of loans advanced. (b)The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
