The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Trichy v. Sri.s.m.palaniappa Chettiar (Deceased

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.12.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Tax Case No.1354 of 2005 The Commissioner of Income-tax,Trichy. ... Appellant Vs. 1. Sri.S.M.Palaniappa Chettiar (Deceased) 2. P.Chellappan3. P.L.Muthu4. P.L.Gandhi5. Y.E.Kannamma6. A.L.Solai (RR2 to 6 substituted as LRs of the deceased sole respondent vide order dated 21.8.2012 in M.P.No.2 of 2012.) ... Respondents Tax Case filed under Sec. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 16.9.2003 in ITA No.604/Mds/2003, andagainst the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)Tiruchirappalli, dated 23.01.2003 made in ITA Nos.59 to 64 and66 & 67/02-03, against the order of the Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax Company Circle-I, Tiruchirappalli dated 22/3/2002,made in PAN/GIR No.101PP3; (Judgment of the court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J.) Learned counsels at Bar would submit that the issue involvedin the present Tax Case is squarely covered by the decision of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ coordinate Bench of this court in Sapthagiri Finance &Investments v. Income Tax Officer ((2012) 82 CCH 86), wherein itis held as under:- "13. As far as the present case is concerned, theprovisions of Section 148 also uses the expression"so far as may be apply accordingly as if suchreturn were a return required to be furnished underSection 139". Thus, understanding this provisionsin the background of the decision of the Apex Courton the facts available, we are of the view that incompleting the assessment under Section 148 of theAct, compliance of the procedure laid down underSections 142 and 143(2) is mandatory. On theadmitted fact that beyond notice under Section 142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), and in the light of the fact that the verybasis of the reassessment was the failure on thepart of the assessee in not disclosing the capitalgains arising on the transfer of property forassessment and that admittedly the assessee hadrequested the officer to accept the original returnas a return filed in response to Section 148 of theAct, we hold that there was total failure on thepart of the Revenue from complying with theprocedure laid down under Section 143(2) of theAct, which is mandatory one as held by the ApexCourt. 14. Although on merits, we do not agree withthe contention of the assessee that the capitalgains would not be assessable at the hands of thefirm, yet for the reasons stated in the precedingparagraph that in the absence of notice underSection 143(2) reassessment could not be held to bevalidly made. Thus, we have no hesitation insetting aside the order of the Tribunal." 2. The present Tax Case stands admitted on the followingsubstantial question of law:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the reopening of theassessment under Section 147 and completion ofassessment without issue of notice under Section143(2) within twelve months is not valid?" 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we aresatisfied that the said issue is no longer res integra and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ present Tax Case is covered by the decision of a coordinateBench of this court in the aforesaid case and therefore, thepresent Tax Case is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, itis dismissed. The substantial question of law is answered infavour of the assessee. No order as to costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Income Tax Appellate, Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai.2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I, Tiruchirappalli.3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli.T.C.No.1354 of 2005br[co]srg 2/3/2019