Ita/803/2008 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sri D T Paramesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 20[th]day of June, 2014 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR ANTI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR| ITA No.803 of 2008 !" ITA No.804 of 2008 ITA No.803 of 2008BBRITIWE 1.)The Commissioner ot Income Tax C.R. Building Queens Road. Bangalore iaThe Assistant Commissioner ot Income tax. Circle — 7(1)_ C.R. Building, Queens Road| Bangalore.. Appellant (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate) AND: Sri D.T. Paramesh C-7/297, 4[th]Main o BDA Layout.DomlurrBangalore ... Respondent (By Sri A Shankar & M.Lava, Advocates) This ITA filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961.arising out of order dated 28-03-2008 passed in ITA|No.643/BNG/2007, for the Assessment year 2003-2004,|praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law|stated therein; (11) allow the appeal and set aside the order|passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.643/Bng/2007,|dated 28-03-2008 confirm the orders of the Appellate|Commissioner and confirm the order passed by the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1) Bangalore. | ITA No.804 of JOOS BBRITIWE Ll.The Commissioner ot Income Tax.C.R. BuildingQueens Road|BangaloreC.R. BuildingQueens Road|BangaloreiaThe Assistant Commissionerot Income tax.Circle — 7(1).C.R. Building, Queens Road|Bangalore.. Appellant(By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate)ot Income tax.Circle — 7(1).C.R. Building, Queens Road|Bangalore.. Appellant(By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate)AND: Sri D.T. ParameshC-7/297, 4[th]MainBDA Layout. 3 DomlurBangalore ... Respondent (BySri.A.ShankarOSM.Lava, Advocates) This ITA filed under Section 260-A of I.T. Act, 1961|arising out of order dated 28-03-2008 passed in ITA|No.6/70/BNG/2007, for the Assessment year 2003-2004,praying to (i) formulate the substantial questions of law|stated therein; (11) allow the appeal and set aside the order|passed by the ITAT Bangalore in ITA No.6/70/Bng/2007,dated 28-03-2008 contirm the orders ot the Assistant|Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Bangalore. | These ITAs coming on for hearing this day,N, KUMARJ‘delivered the following: JU DBGMENT These appeals are preferred against the order passed|by the Tribunal setting aside the assessment order framedon the ground that it is framed without proper service ofnotice and the notice which was served was barred undersection 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter forshort referred to as ‘the Act). 2. The undisputed facts are, the assessee filed the)return of income within the period prescribed under law.The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessing officer| v issued a notice under Section 142(2) of the Act on15.10.2004. It was dispatched to the assessee on 33.11.2004.As the acknowledgement was not received, one more noticewas issued on 22.7.2005 which was duly served on theassessee. Thereaiter, the assessee entered appearance andcontended that the notice issued on 22.7.2005 is timebarred. The assessing authority rejected the said contentionon the ground that the first notice was issued in time.Though acknowledgement was not received it is deemed tohave been served. Then he proceeded to frame theassessment. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred|an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Heupheld the validity of the notice but deleted all additionsbarring a small amount. Both the assessee and revenuepreferred the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal after referring to the statutoryprovisions held that, the requirement of law is notice to be C 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred|an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Heupheld the validity of the notice but deleted all additionsbarring a small amount. Both the assessee and revenuepreferred the appeals before the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal after referring to the statutoryprovisions held that, the requirement of law is notice to be C served. There is no deeming provision under the Act. It is|because no acknowledgement was received after issuing of anotice, the authority himself has sent a second notice on22.7.2005. Admittedly, the said notice is sent beyond theperiod of limitation and, therefore, it held the assessingauthority had no jurisdiction to frame the assessment.Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by theassessee holding that the notice is time barred and itdismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. Oo. We do not see any infirmity in the order passed by|the Tribunal and the same is in accordance with law. It doesnot call for any interference. Hence, there is no merit inthese appeals and accordingly they are dismissed. Sd/-JUDGE| Sd/-JUDGE