TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 823X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee is that in this case, notice under s. 143(2) was not served upon the assessee within 12 months from the end of the month of filing of return of income and hence, the assessment order itself is bad and liable to be quashed. 3. It is submitted by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that a copy of remand report of the AO dt. 11th Jan., 2007 is available on p. 359 of the paper book and from the same, it can be seen that first notice under s. 143(2) was issued on 27th Dec, 2004 at the address E-18, Kalkaji, and the same was first sent through the Inspector, who reported that no such company exists at this address. He submitted that hence the notice was not served on the assessee. It is submitted that as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. v. Dy. CIT in IT(SS)A No. 261 (Delhi) 2001, dt. 14th Jan., 2009 [reported at [2009] 120 TTJ (Delhi)(SB) 577 : [2009] 18 DTR (Delhi)(SB)(Trib) 1- Ed.], (copy furnished) in support of this contention that the provisions of s. 292BB are applicable from asst. yr. 2008-09 and is not retrospective. In support of the same contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Mani Kakar [2009] 18 DTR (Delhi) 145. Learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below and it was also submitted that it is noted by the AO in the assessment order as well as in the said remand report that the notice under s. 143(2), dt. 30th Dec, 2004 was issued and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice was served is not stated by the AO in the remand report but still it can be said that at best, the notice was served on some employee of the assessee firm. Now, we have to examine that whether service of notice on an employee is a valid service or not. In this regard, we find that in the case of CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma (supra), similar issue was under consideration of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In that case, notice under s. 148 was said to served on an employee of the assessee and it was held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that there is nothing to suggest that the said employee, whose name, i.e., 'Lalmani' was available in that case, was in any manner authorized to receive any summons on behalf of the assessee and henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
