-
Question: Whether assessment order would be void ab initio when the ld. Assessing Officer failed to issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. Further whether procsseding u/s 263 action can be taken: ITAT KOLKATA decided the issue on 27.8.2022
-
Section 147 on 27 April, 2020 Unless the assessing officer assesses the income with reference to which he had formed a reason to believe within the meaning of section 147, it would not be open to him to assess or reassess any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice. ITAT, DELHI BENCH in the case of Sheela Foam Ltd. v. DCIT. IT-CASES-217-2020
-
If the Notice u/s 143(2) issued by Income tax Officer was having no Jurisdiction at the time of issue of the notice then this is not a valid notice as it suffers from an inherent lacuna affecting his / its jurisdiction. It is not a curable defect u/s 292BB. The consequent order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2017 was legally unsustainable and therefore is null in the eyes of law and therefore quashed. ITO vs Mr.P N Krishnamurthy ITAT Bangalore on 27 April, 2020.
-
Section 148-ITAT, PUNE BENCH-11 September, 2019 held that Reassessment—Validity—only on the basis of the some reasons to believe about the escapement of income. Existence of reasons for escapement of income are sine qua non to embark upon the assessment or reassessment under section 147 of the Act. Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani v. ACIT. AY 2009-10
-
Kindly note Supreme Court in Vodafone Idea on 29th April 2020 held that there is assessment year wise regime in processing of refund u/s 143(1)
-
ITAT- Amritsar on 18 February, 2020-hold that In the light of ratio laid down by the Hon`ble Supreme Court citation 418 ITR 662 (S.C.) it is the duty of the assessee to keep upto date the address in data base of the IT Department by submitting timely prescribed application.
-
What are the consequences when the notice u/s 143(2) served without examining the return filed in compliance of notice.? The answer is given by ITAT DELHI on 20 February, 2020 in the case of Ananya Portfolio (P) Ltd. v. ITO- IT-CASES-203-2020. Assessment quashed.
-
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS on Mar 3, 2020 hold that there is no capital gain on Refundable Security Deposit received through development agreement when owner continues to be owner throughout agreement, and has at no stage purported to transfer rights akin to ownership to developer—At highest, possession alone is given under agreement, and that too for a specific purpose, purpose being to develop property, as envisaged by all parties
-
1.4.2017 से केवल धारा 143(2) की प्रोसिडिंग के आधार पर करदाता का रिफंड नहीं रोका जा सकता
-
KOLKATA TRIBUNAL on 8.9.2019 held that Section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed on AO’s record. Without doing so, the addition made by the AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no addition was warranted under Section 68 of the Act. The amount of Rs. 31,75,000/-, as it pertains to the previous assessment year is deleted and for balance sum of Rs.2,66,00,000/- received during the year, the assessee has proved identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the share subscribers, hence, same is deleted. (Para 38) EVERGREEN RESIDENCY PVT. LTD. vs ITO