TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and, therefore, the assessment order passed under section 144 was unsustainable. While holding so, the Tribunal has observed that the service of first notice by affixture was bad inasmuch as the procedure prescribed for effecting service by affixture was not followed by the Assessing Officer and as regards the second notice, nothing was brought on record to show that it was served on the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Bench, SMC-I, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") in I.T.A. Nos. 4379-4381 and 4660 (Delhi) of 2000, pertaining to the assessment years 1992-93 to 1995-96. Since the issue sought to be raised by the Revenue in all the four appeals is identical, these are being disposed of by this common order. The background facts giving rise to the appeals are as follows: The respondent/assessee is a der ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer to the returned income, the assessee preferred appeals to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). One of the grounds urged before the appellate authority was that since the assessee had not received any notice under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessment orders passed under section 144 of the Act, were illegal. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not agree with the assessee on the q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue. Learned counsel while candidly admitting that the service of first notice by affixture was not strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, submits that the second notice was served on the assessee through a process server, who presumably had given a report that he had served th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
