Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (7) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se for making the assessment u/s 144 adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted to the assessee. Therefore, it is justified in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46(A)(3). The evidence showed that tax has been deducted and paid to the Central Government. Consequently there is no reason to disallow the expenditure Disallowance from laundry expenses, house keeping and service expenses have been deleted by mentioning that the AO has not brought any evidence on record that the expenses were not incurred in the course of business - in favour of assessee - I.T.A No. 3573 & 3856/Del/11 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2012 - SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, JJ. Appellant by: Shri S.K. Upadhyaya, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tutory time limit. As no body attended to the notice, further notices were issued to the Directors. These notices were also not complied with. Therefore, the AO proceeded to make best judgment assessment and finally computed the total income at Rs. 30, 52,560/-. 2.1 Ld. CIT(A) considered the facts of the case and various submissions made before him. He has also obtained a remand report from the AO. The same has also been considered in the impugned order. On facts, the findings are recorded that the notice was issued on the correct address and it was forwarded to the assessee by speed post on 25.9.2008. In this context, he considered the relevant provision contained in the General Clauses Act, 1897, the decision there under and the decisio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o reason to come to the conclusion that the notice issued to the assessee-company was not served on it. 4. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. There are two undisputed facts in this case. Firstly, the notice has been issued to the assessee company by speed post on 16.9.2008 and this notice has not been received back by the AO. Two other notices have been issued to the Directors on the same address on 24.9.2008. These have been received by the Directors. However, it is urged that they were not issued to them in the capacity of Directors of the Company. We also find that the impugned order does not state anywhere that the affidavit was filed by the assessee-company before the Ld. CIT(A) or the assessee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he decision in the case of Mayawati is also not applicable to the fact of this case as various notices issued to her were not accepted by the persons in charge of the premises. 4.2 We may now recapitulate the facts that the valid notice, containing the address of the assessee, was issued by speed post to it on 16.8.2008. The normal presumption is that this notice would have been received by the assessee - company within a period of one or two days. The notice has not been received back. Therefore, it is held that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly come to the conclusion that in absence of any valid rebuttal of service, the same deemed to have been made on the assessee. With these remarks we now proceed to decide the appeal of the revenue. 5. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... x at source and payment thereof to the credit of the Central Government. As there has been no violation of provision of section 194(1), it is argued that the impugned order may be sustained. 5.3 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. Only one notice has been issued in this case for making the assessment u/s 144. In the light of this, we tend to agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that adequate opportunity of being heard was not granted to the assessee. Therefore, it is held that he was justified in admitting additional evidence. The evidence showed that tax has been deducted and paid to the Central Government. Consequently we agree with his finding that there is no reason to disallow the expenditure. 6. The posit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates