9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted on behalf of the Revenue. 3. In the assessee's appeal , assessee has raised the following grounds: - (1) The order passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, invalid and bad in law. (2)(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in giving a factually wrong finding that the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allegedly issued on 29.09.2009, had been served on the authorized signatory on behalf of the appellant firm on 30.09.2009. (2)(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the date of 'service of the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act' should be considered as the 'date of issue of the notice under consideration' and in that way i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 30.09.2008. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had issued a notice under section 133(2) on 29.09.2009 but the same was served on the assessee only on 03.10.2009. It was the submission that in the assessment order the Assessing Officer mentions of an acknowledgment slip for service of the notice bearing the signature of the authorized signatory and the firm's seal is on record. Ld. A.R. drew our attention to page 23 of the paper book, which was a copy of the tear of acknowledgment . It was the submission that the signature was not that any of the authorized signatory of the assessee. It was the further submission that no notice under sect ion 143(2) was served on the assessee vide the tear of acknowledgment . It was the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Maxima Systems Ltd. reported in (2012) 344 ITR 204 (Guj.), wherein the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has categorically held that the notice under section 143(2) having been served after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return was furnished, Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to frame the assessment and the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer was invalid. It was the submission that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was liable to be quashed. On merits, it was the submission that in the assessment the Assessing Officer has without considering the submissions of the assessee m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tedly when a notice under section 143(2) is prepared, there is the original and the carbon copy. The original is sent to the assessee. The assessee has placed before us the copy of the original 143(2) notice served on the assessee through the Postal Authorities through Speed Post. If this notice has been served through the Speed Post , where is the second copy which could have been served through the tear of acknowledgment , because there is only one original and one copy which is in the assessment records. This clearly shows that no notice under section 143(2) has been served on the assessee on 30.09.2009 through the tear of acknowledgment slip. The service of the notice under section 143(2) would have to be accepted as mentioned in the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
