TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stipulated period to raise the presumption against the assessee. The entire record of the Assessing Officer is silent and as such, the Assessing Officer cannot be allowed to raise the presumption for service of notice on assessee. So, we are of the considered view that service of notice u/s 143(2) is essential and assessment made without service of such a notice is invalid. So, when the assessee has categorically proved that the change of address has already been intimated to the Revenue by incorporating the same in the relevant return of income for the Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessment order due to non service of notice u/s 143(2), is not sustainable. Assessment order passed in this case by the Assessing Officer without getting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. That the following observations of the learned CIT (A) in the order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading. (a)In regard to disallowance of ₹ 58,442/- under the head telephone, business promotion and car maintenance that the assessee has not brought any material or satisfactory explanation. (b)In regard to service to notice stating and assuming that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was never returned back unserved to the Assessing Officer. (c)In regard to service to notice stating that change of address in PAN card has not been done by the assessee whereas the same were also filed before CIT (A). (d) In regard to bad debts stating that the amount of ₹ 5 lacks is not a trading receip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing evidence. Assessee, vide letter dated 17.12.2008 also claimed that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not served upon the assessee in time and at the correct address, which has not been accepted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the case was selected for scrutiny through computer and notice was generated as per the computerized address furnished by the assessee in Form 49A, so, treated the notice sent through registered post on 24.07.2007 as a valid service and thereby assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹ 9,77,392/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter before Ld. CIT(A) who has partly allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by filing the present appeal. 5. We h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer categorically raising the question that the notice dated 16.04.2008 has never been served upon him and as such it is not possible to prepare the case. Perusal of the return of income filed by the assessee for the relevant Assessment Year 2006-07 shows that he has categorically mentioned his name as Ramesh Kumar Gupta S/o M L Gupta, 3968-B, Naya Bazar, Delhi and has also mentioned his PAN as AAEPG8444J. A perusal of notice dated 24.07.2007 issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(2) accompanied with postal receipt goes to prove that the same was issued on the address Ramesh Gupta, C-628, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Assessee vehemently denied to have received the notice. Even otherwise it is not the case of Revenue that the notice i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
