IN THE ITAT, BANGALORE BENCH

GEORGE K, V.P. & LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, A.M.

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

ITA No. 1034/BANG/2023

11 March, 2024

Appellant by: Inder Paul Bansal & Vivek Bansal

Respondent by: Nilanjan Dey, Addl. CIT-D.R.

George K, V.P.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against Commissioner (Appeals)s Order dated 22-11-2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act hereinafter). The relevant assessment year is 2009-10.

2. The grounds raised read as follows:-

1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred in law as much as in facts in upholding the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings without discussing the facts ad without taking into consideration specific grounds of appeal and also without taking into consideration the written submissions.

2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings is bad in law on the ground that issue regarding invalidity of initiation of reassessment proceedings as per notice dated 29-3-2016 is bad in law on account of non-culmination and pendency of earlier notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) which was dated 26-3-2013 which could not be automatically considered as null and void as has been held by the assessing officer.

3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned National Faceless Appeal Centre has failed to appreciate that the reasons recorded with regard to notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 29-3-2016 have no mention of earlier notice dated 26-3-2013 and any disposal thereof or the fact that the notice dated 29-3-2016 is being issued for the reason that earlier notice dated 26-3-2013 has become in fructuous due to assessment to be framed in pursuance thereto has become time barred, therefore, the initiation of reassessment proceedings is bad in law as without recording such fact in the reasons the second notice could not have been issued and would be based on non-application of mind and bad in law.