INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 143(2) Section 143(1)

Assessment - Validity of mandatory notice under section 143(2) - Notice served on address not intimated to Revenue/mentioned in IT Return -

Assessee had assailed the jurisdiction of AO in passing the assessment order in the absence of valid service of notice under section 143(2). The AR submitted that assessee was a statutory body. While applying for Permanent Account Number (PAN), assessee furnished its office address. The assessee had been filing all its returns of income giving the office address and all the notices have been issued to the assessee by the department on the said office address, except the mandatory notice under section 143(2) for the impugned assessment year. Assessee pointed that assessee had been filing its returns of income giving the above address. Even for assessment year 2012-13 the address mentioned in the return of income was same. There had been no change in the address. The Authorized Representative of assessee pointed that on the notice issued by the AO under section 143(2) dated 26-9-2013 to the assessee, residential address had been mentioned. The AR stated at the Bar that at no point of time the residential address was furnished by the assessee to the department. The AR submitted that since notice under section 143(2) had not been validly served on the assessee, the assessment order itself was invalid. DR submitted that in the absence of assessment folder he was not in a position to counter the arguments made by the assessee challenging the validity of notice issued under section 143(2). The DR pointed that due to restructuring of the department, coupled with restrictions due to COVID-19 pandemic, very less strength of supporting staff is available in the office. Therefore, it may not be possible to retrieve the assessment records. CIT(A) had not given any independent finding for the impugned assessment year, except for placing reliance on the orders of CIT(A) for preceding assessment years. Held: Assessee's activity was in no way could be held for the profit motive or for carrying out systematic business, albeit all its policy as well as conduct was to provide shelter to the needy and poor people in line with the mandate of Constitution of India. Taking into consideration entirety of facts, Tribunal deemed it proper not to decide ground at this stage. The issue was left open to be adjudicated at a later point of time, if need arose.

Followed:Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) : 010 TaxPub(DT) 1434 (SC) and CIT v. Gene Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 214 Taxmann.com 83 (Bom-HC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Against the assessee.

A.Y. : 2012-13 & 2014-15

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 2(15), Proviso read with Section 11

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT