Tribunal held that the notice under S. 148 was issued on the same date, the objection of the assessee for such reopening was disposed of by the AO passing a speaking order on the same date, the reassessment orders for both the years were passed on the same date and the CIT(A) also had passed the appellate orders for both the years separately on the same date. Therefore, it could not be said that the assessee had filed the reply for treating the earlier return as the return in response to the notice under S. 148 only for the AY. 2010-11 and not for the AY. 2011-12, especially when the postal receipts for both the speed posts were also on the same date. Since the assessee filed the letter stating that the return filed originally may be treated as return filed in response to the notice under S. 148 and since the notice under S. 143(2) was not issued within the statutory period and since the assessment was not completed under S. 144 nor any interest under S. 234A charged which indirectly proved that the assessee, in fact, had filed the letter stating that the return filed originally may be treated as return filed in response to the notice under S. 148. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO was not in accordance with law and had to be quashed. (AY. 2011-12)
Flovel Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 77 ITR 441 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice–Reply stating that original return filed should be treated as return filed in repose to notice u/s. 148-Postal receipt is filed–Neither notice u/s. 143(2) is issued nor assessment completed u/s. 144 of the Act nor interest charged u/s. 234A–Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 139, 143(2), 144, 147, 234A]