D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. Resultantly, The Appeal Is Dismissed. Stayapplication Is Also Dismissed

21.2.2012 D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.340/2011COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTAVS.SHRI CHANAN DAS HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I Ms.Parinitoo Jain for the appellant. Order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal in four misc.applications arisingoutofCrossObjectionsNo.1/JP/2005(ITSSANo.84/JP/2004),80/JP/2005(ITSSANo.62/JP/2005),16/JP/2005(ITSSA No.100/JP/2004 and 79/JP/2005(ITSSANo.64/JP/2005) has been questioned. In the cross objections ground was taken that nonotice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act wasserved upon the assessee before framing the blockassessment. The Tribunal has dismissed the ground ofthe assessee by holding that issuance of notice underSection 143(2) of the IT Act is not necessary forassessment under Section 158BC of the IT Act. Decisionof the Apex Court inACIT Vs. Hotel Blue Moon, 321 ITR362(SC)has been relied upon by the Tribunal to allowthe applications for setting aside the previous orderwhich was passed by it. Reliance has also been placedon decision of the Apex Court in ACIT Vs. SaurashtraKutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 305 ITR 227(SC).Applications were not objected to. Prayer was made byDR to dispose of the misc.applications. Considering that the decision of the Apex Courtwas not available at the time of passing of the order,the Tribunal has corrected its order and held thatwithout serving notice under Section 143(2) of the ITAct, the assessments were without jurisdiction andthus void ab initio. Considering the fact that the applications werenot contested, rather accented to, we find no groundto interfere the impugned order which has been passedrelying upon the aforesaid decisions of the ApexCourt. No substantial question of law arises in thisappeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Stayapplication is also dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),C.J. Skant/- All the corrections made in the judgment/order have beenincorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Shashi Kant Gaur, PA