TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee. - I. T. A. No. 226 /CTK/ 2013(assessment year 2009-10). - - - Dated:- 26-5-2015 - SUNIL KUMAR YADAV (Judicial Member) and B. P. JAIN (Accountant Member) B. Panda for the appellant. K. K. Nath for the respondent. ORDER The order of the Bench was delivered by 1. B. P. Jain (Accountant Member).-This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Bhubaneswar dated March 25, 2013 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Although the assessee has raised various grounds, however, learned counsel for the assessee has pressed ground Nos. (a) and (b) for adjudication, which are as under : (a) For that the orders of the forums below are illegal, unjust and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pinaki Prasad Swain. Subsequent facts prove that this notice was duly handed over to the appellant who in turn had authorised his authorised representative for necessary compliance to the notice. Accordingly, the authorised representative had appeared before the Assessing Officer) on February 2, 2011. He had filed a Hazira on that date stating that the petitioner was present before the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar on that day through his authorised representative for hearing of the assessment year 2009-10 in response to notice dated September 27, 2010 . This clearly establishes that whether or not the original service of the notice was on the proper person became irrelevant, because eventually the notice h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow. 7. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench in Hind Book House v. ITO I. T. Appeal No. 1017 (Del) of 2000 assessment year 1996-97 [2005] 274 ITR (AT) 61 (Delhi) and the relevant part in para 8 of the said decision is reproduced hereinbelow (page 68) : 8. In the present case, the notice purportedly served on the assessee-firm was neither served on any of its partners or its agent duly authorised to receive the said notice. As is evident from the record, the same was served on one Mr. A. Singh who was neither the agent of the assessee-firm duly authorised to receive the said notice on its behalf nor even its employee. The said person to whom the notice in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
