9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvalid". 2. In the process, the ld.CIT(A) failed to take judicial notice of provisions of section 251 of the I.T.Act, wherein, it has been laid down that in an appeal against the order of assessment, the CIT(A) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. The ld.CIT(A) has no powers to declare the assessment "invalid". 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the materials on record are as under:- 2.1. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of purchase and sale of shares. Assessee electronically filed its return of income on 30/09/2008 declaring total income at Rs. 31,879/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard it was submitted that the case of the assessee has been transferred to the undersigned by ITO Ward-4(1), Baroda consequent to the centralization order passed by the CIT-II, Baroda on 29.0-9.2011. The issue regarding service of the notice u/s.143(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961, has been remanded to the undersigned. In this regard, it is submitted that a notice was issued to the assessee-company on 29/09/2009 at the address recorded by the assessee in its return of income filed for the relevant assessment year vide speed post No.BDQ/BDR-BNPL-161/21-4 dated 30/09/2009. However, the acknowledgement of the same is not available on record. Accordingly, the matter was taken up with ITO, Ward-4(1), Baroda. The ITO vide its letter dated 08/02/2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice could have been received by the assessee on the same day unless the notice was sent by hand, which is not so in the present case. The Court has further stated that in CIT vs. Vardhman Estate (P.) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 368 (Delhi), a notice was sent by speed post one day before the period of limitation was to expire that is, on 30/10/2002 and the contention urged by the revenue in that case was that the notice sent should be deemed to have been served on the assessee. This argument was rejected by this Court and it was made clear that what is required by the statute is not merely the dispatch or issuance of the notice but its actual service. 5. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion and hold that notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
