CIT v. Fomento Fianance & Investment (P) Ltd. (2019) 183 DTR 340 / (2020) 312 CTR 88 / 421 ITR 146 / 272 Taxman 171 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Substantial question of law on jurisdictional issue is framed at the time of final hearing of appeal and the order of Assessing Officer is quashed for not issuing the mandatory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. [S. 158BB, 158C, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)]

Tribunal decided the quantum addition in favour of the assessee. In the cross objection the assessee raised the issue of non servicing the  issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, though the ITAT has not given  a  finding against the assessee on the issue of notice u/s 143( 2 ) of the Act.  Substantial question of law is raised at the time of final hearing of the appeal though it was not raised at the time of admission of appeal.  Substantial question of law is admitted on following question of law  “Whether non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vitiates that assessment proceedings under Section 158 BC of the Income Tax Act in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon  2010 3SCC 259?”

Following the ratio of  Apex Court in ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon, the Court held that the omission on the part of the Assessing Authority to issue notice under Section 143(2)cannot be regarded as a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and such requirement cannot be dispensed with. Hon’ble Apex Court has held that even for the purpose of Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act for determining of undisclosed income for block assessment in proceedings under S.  158BC, provisions of Section 142, 143(2) and 143(3) are applicable and no assessment can be made without issuing notice under Section 142 of the said Act. Accordingly the order is held to be bad in law. (TA No.75 of 2008 /Misc.  A No .  179 of 2016 dt. 13-09-2019)