Search Results For: 292BB


Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 2, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 9, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Bogus purchases cannot be assessed as 'unexplained expenditure' u/s 69C if the transactions are duly disclosed and payments are through banks. The fact that the sellers are not traceable and the assessee surrendered the bogus purchases does not justify levy of penalty. Mere non-striking of the options in the s. 274 notice does not render the penalty proceedings void if the assessment order shows due application of mind.

Section 69C could not be applied to the facts of the case as the payments were through banking channels which were duly reflected in the books of accounts and therefore, there was no unexplained expenditure within the meaning of Section 69C incurred by the assessee. Further, we find that the assessee was in possession of purchase invoices and various other documentary evidences qua these purchases. A bare perusal of the purchase invoices reveals that the assessee has purchased consumables etc. from the alleged bogus suppliers, which are connected, at least to some extent, with the business of the assessee. The assessee, during quantum proceedings itself filed revised computation of income after disallowing the alleged bogus purchases by citing the reason that the suppliers were not traceable during assessment proceedings. Nevertheless, the assessee was in possession of vital evidences in his possession to prima facie substantiate his purchases to some extent particularly when the payments were though banking channels. Merely because the suppliers could not be traced at the given address would not automatically lead to a conclusion that there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

CIT vs. Abacus Distribution Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 7, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 15, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2)/ 292BB: The issue of a notice u/s 143(2) bearing the wrong (old) address of the assessee does not amount to a valid service of the notice u/s 282 r.w.s. 27 of the General Clauses Act. The non-service of a notice u/s 143(2) before the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed renders the assessment void. As the assessee objected to the same before completion of proceedings, the assessment order is not saved by s. 292BB

It is undisputed position before us that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act which was handed over to the post office on 30th November, 2007 was incorrectly addressed i.e. it was addressed to the assessee’s old office at Nariman Point, Mumbai. In terms of Section 282 of the Act as existing in 2007 a notice may be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it were a summons issued by the Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act provides that where any Central Act requires a document to be served by post where the expression “serve” or “given” or “sent” shall be deemed to have been effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting. In such cases, unless the contrary is proved which would be deemed to have been served at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post to the addressee. In this case admittedly the envelope containing the notice was wrongly addressed. Thus the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act cannot be invoked

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Pr. CIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 14, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2)/ 292BB: Failure to issue a s. 143(2) notice renders the reassessment order void. S. 292BB saves a case of "non service" of the notice but not a case of "non issue"

The failure of the AO, in re-assessment proceedings, to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, prior to finalising the re-assessment order, cannot be condoned by referring to Section 292BB of the Act. Section 292BB applies insofar as failure of “service” of notice is concerned and not with regard to failure to “issue” notice. The non-issue of the said notice is fatal to the order of re-assessment

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Color Craft vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 17, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 282: Law on validity of service of notices by "Speed Post" instead of "Registered Post A/D" explained

Registered post would take within its sweep not only ‘speed post’ but also all other mails forming part of the establish system of mails in which their receipt and movement is recorded to assure safe delivery. All the principal attributes of ‘registered post’ were inherently present in ‘speed post’, so that the two were of the same genus. The term registered post being not defined, it could only be so in terms of its elements, which the tribunal gathered from the dictionary meaning of the word ‘registered’; its common parlance meaning; and its substance

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

ITO vs. Late Som Nath Malhotra (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 2, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 148/ 292BB: Issue of notice in the name of the deceased person renders the assessment order null and void even if the order is passed in the name of the legal heir. The fact that the legal heir attended the proceedings does not make it a curable defect u/s 292BB

The AO issued notice dated 31.03.2010 u/s 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee and also mentioned in the body of the assessment order that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee by Post within the statutory time period prescribed. Though the legal heir of the deceased assessee informed the AO that the assessee had expired and the return in the name of deceased assessee was filed by the legal heir, the AO did not issue any notice u/s 148 of the Act or 143(2) of the Act in the name of the legal heir. Therefore, the assessment framed by the AO on the basis of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee was invalid and void ab initio

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Sanjay Badani vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 9, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 6, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
A strict procedure has to be followed for service by affixture. If done improperly, the notice and the resultant assessment order are null and void.

(i) As per sub-section (1) of section 282, the notice is to be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it was a summons issued by Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V

Posted in Tribunal

Bharat Sewa Sansthan vs. DCIT (ITAT Lucknow)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 23, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1993-94
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Non-service of s. 143(2) notice does render s. 158BC assessment order if return is belated and assessee participated in assessment proceedings

In the instant case, undisputedly the return was not filed under section 139(1) of the Act, it was rather a belated return as it was filed on 19.1.1995 and due date for filing of return was 31.10.1993. The return of

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

DCIT vs. M/s Silver Line (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 4, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Non-issue of s. 143(2) notice renders s. 147 assessment void. S. 292BB does not apply. If there is a conflict of judicial opinion, the view in favour of the assessee must be taken. Respondent can raise an additional ground in a Cross-Objection

(i) Now, the moot question for consideration is: Whether the non-issuance of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act as alleged by the assessee-firm had vitiated the conclusion of the assessments u/s 147 read with s. 143(3) of the Act?

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal