Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur- Ii, Jaipur v. Shri Mahendra Kumar Sethia, O-1-B, Hospital Road, Jaipur
High Court
20 Aug 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur- Ii, Jaipur v. Shri Mahendra Kumar Sethia, O-1-B, Hospital Road, Jaipur
Date of order
20 Aug 2019
Assessment year(s)
2007-08
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur- Ii, Jaipur v. Shri Mahendra Kumar Sethia, O-1-B, Hospital Road, Jaipur, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: 4.The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.315/2018
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur- II, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
Shri Mahendra Kumar Sethia, O-1-B, Hospital Road, Jaipur
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGHOrder
20/08/2019
1.The question of law on behalf of the revenue is that ITATshould not have invalidated the assessment (for AY 2007-08) onthe ground that notice was not issued under section 143(2) of theIncome Tax Act.
2.It is submitted in this regard that this issue was not urgedbefore the lower appellate authority.
3.This court notices from the impugned order that ITAT reliedupon the ruling in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362. Apparently the assessee hadargued and challenged the validity of assessment proceedings, inthe absence of a notice under section 143(2). It is now settled lawthat without issuing notice under section 143(2) the assessmentcannot be deemed complete under section 143(3) of the Act.Since the revenue has not urged this ground as an appeal - nordoes it appear to have opposed the factual foundation for thefinding by the ITAT in the hearing before it, this Court is of theopinion that no substantial question of law arises.
4.The appeal is therefore dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.