×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT (Central), Kanpur, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 22/3/2017 for assessment year assessment year 2013-14.
2. There is a delay of 19 days in filing of this appeal. As per the application for condonation of delay, supported by the affidavit of Shri Vikash Garg, Chartered Accountant, we find that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing.
3. The following grounds have been taken by the assessee in the original memo of appeal:
1. That the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) Kanpur u/s 263 is bad in law and a nullity in terms of section 282 and 282A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. That the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) Kanpur u/s 263 is wholly without jurisdiction as the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) could not be held to be erroneous.
3. That the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle) Kanpur u/s 263 is bad in law, the same being passed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
4. Because the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter amend any/all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the appeal.
4. The following additional grounds have also been taken: 06. Because even otherwise no notice having been issued u/s. 143(2) while framing the assessment u/s. 143(3), which makes the order passed u/s 143(3) without jurisdiction no variation could be made to the income returned, the order passed u/s.263 would be without jurisdiction bad in law and be quashed.
07. Because the return filed on 26.09.2013 u/s.139(1) having being accepted and there being no new tangible material the proceedings initiated u/s.148/147 are without jurisdiction, the order passed thereon is bad in law and consequently the impugned order passed by the Principal CIT (Central) u/s.263 is also bad in law and be quashed.
08. Because the re-assessment framed u/s. 147/143(3) dated 30.03.2015, is without jurisdiction in as much as no "reasons" as mandated u/s.. 148(2) have been recorded, the order being void ab-initio, bad in law, and a nullity, the order passed u/s. 263 by the Principal CIT dated 22.03.2017 would also be without jurisdiction, void ab-inito bad in law, be quashed.
5. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has stated at the bar that he does not wish to press additional ground No.6. Accordingly, additional ground No.6 is rejected as not pressed.
6. Apropos ground No.7, it has been contended that the return of income filed by the assessee stands accepted, inasmuch as no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was ever issued; and that there being no new tangible material available with the Assessing Officer, the proceedings initiated under section 148/147 of the Act are without jurisdiction and, therefore, the assessment order passed was bad in law, due to which, the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act are also bad in law and are liable to be cancelled. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following case laws:-
(i) M/s. NKG Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT in ITA No. 3825 to 3827/Del/2018.
(ii) Westlife Development Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT, 49 ITR (Tribunal) 406 (Mumbai)
(iii) Valiant Glass Works Pvt. Ltd ACIT in ITA No. 1612/M/2013 Order dt. 27.07 2016.
(iv) Hemal Knitting Industries vs. ACIT 127 ITD 160 (Madras)
(v) P V Doshi vs. CIT, 113 ITR 22 (Guj).
7. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. has placed strong reliance on the impugned order.
8. Heard. The facts, as patent on record, are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 19/04/2012 at the various premises of M/s K C Pan Products (P) Ltd. Group of cases, including the premises of the assessee, in which, certain documents, assets, etc., were found and seized. Thereafter, the case of