The Commissioner Of Income Taxcity Ii v. Assistant Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Reported In Vol.123 Taxman Magazine226

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONAPPEAL NO.427 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income TaxCity II.. AppellantVersusLaxminarayan S. Agarwal.. RespondentMs.Anamika Malhotra for appellant.Mr.S.N.Porwal for respondentCORAM :SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ. &A.P.DESHPANDE, J.DATE:8th August 2008 P.C. .Present appeal is directed against theorder of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MumbaiBench dated 14th October 2004. The Tribunal wasdealing with assessment year 1993-94. Accordingto facts recorded in the order impugned in thepresent appeal, an assessee had filed his Return by a letter 20th September 1996. The AssessingOfficer had to issue a notice under section143(2) of the Income Tax Act on or before 31stOctober 1997. However, such notice was issued bythe Assessing Officer on 2nd September 1998 whichwas served upon the petitioner on 9th September1998. On these facts it accepted the point ofthe Assessee that notice under section 143(2) wasserved beyond the prescribed period ofLimitation. Resultantly, the proceedings werenot tenable in the eyes of law. The Tribunalfollowed this view taken in the case of UmaPolymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, reported in Vol.123 Taxman Magazine226. 2.We may also notice that such an approachwould be in consonance with the provisions ofSection 143(2) which in turn would be applicableto the proceedings under section 148 of the Act.The Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. MahiValley Hotels and Resorts, reported in (2006) 287ITR 360 (Guj) also has expressed the same view.No question of law, much less, a substantialquestion of law arises for consideration in thepresent appeal. The same is dismissed. ( CHIEF JUSTICE ) (A.P.Deshpande, J).