COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUKHINI P. MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the tax appeals are decided by a common judgment inasmuch as the question of facts and law are identical in all of them. For the purpose of deciding these tax appeals, the facts contained in Tax Appeal No. 1353 of 2007 shall be taken into consideration:

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel, Ms. Mauna Bhatt, for the Revenue and Shri R.K. Patel for the assessee -respondent.

(3.) THIS was challenged before the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) on the ground that the notice under section 143(2) had not been issued and the only notice served was under section 142(1) of the Act. Following the decision of the apex court, on detailed examination of the issue, the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) concluded that the assessment framed was not sustainable. The Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) relied upon the decision of the apex court rendered in the case of R. Dalmia v. CIT reported in : [1999] 236 ITR 480 (SC) to hold that after notice of reassessment under section 148 has been issued, the procedure as required under section 142(1) and section 143 for completing the assessment requires to be carried out. It eventually concluded that if the return is filed under section 148 the requirement of issuance of notice under section 142(2) of the Act within a year of filing of the return cannot be on the ground that the assessment framed was without issuance of notice under section 143(2) within the stipulated period of 12 months of filing of the return, it did not sustain assessment.