TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 635X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1419/Ahd/2006 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2013 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Tej Ram Meena,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri A. L. Thakkar For the Respondent : Shri Y. P. Verma ORDER Per G. C. Gupta, Vice-President:- This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2001-2002 is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad dated 28.03.2006. 2. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are as under:- "1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the finding oft he AO that the service of the first notice was a valid service in the yes of law and thereby rejecting the contention of the appellant. 2. The CIT(A) considering the facts of the case ought to have held that the order passed u/s.144 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original assessment order dated 19.2.2004 wherein at page no.2 of the assessment order, the AO has reproduced the chart showing that the notice dated 29.10.2002 under Section-143(2) was served on 31.10.2002 and second notice was sent through speed post on 15.12.2003. 4. The learned DR has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has challenged the validity of the service of notice under Section 143(2) for the first time before the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee- firm was closed and the assessee has not intimated the closure of the firm to the department. He relied on the decision of the Trilok Singh Dhillon v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 332 ITR 185. He relied on the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it is an admitted fact that the notice of hearing under section 143(2) of the Act dated 29.10.,2002 fixing the date of hearing on 14.11.2002 was served on 31.10.2002 on Shri Devang Shah, Chartered Accountant, who has audited the accounts of the assessee-firm. The CIT(A), in the second round, has sent the matter back to the AO for offering his comments on the service of notice under Section 143(2), and the AO has submitted his report vide letter dated 9.3.2006, whose extract has been reproduced by the CIT(A) in the impugned order. We find that the AO has not claimed that Shri Devang Shah, CA was authorised to receive any notice on behalf of the assessee-firm or was the representative of the assessee or that any power of attorney was exec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
