TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judicial Member For the Department : Ms. Rashmita, Sr. DR For the Assessee : Sh. Pramod Jain, CA Sh. Mukul Gupta, Adv. ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. This is an appeal by the Revenue challenging the Order dated 25.11.2013 in Appeal No. 200/10-11 for assessment year 2003-04 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, New Delhi (in Short Ld. CIT(A) ), on the following grounds:- 1. The order of the learned CIT (APPEALS) is erroneous and contrary to facts and law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld, CIT(A) erred in holding that there is no evidence regarding service of notice u/s 148 despite the fact that copy of speed post receipt dated 31.03.2010 was available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 68,17,050/- made by the AO on account of unexplained share application money from an entry operator / unexplained credit entries in bank account, completely ignoring the findings given by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in case like CIT v N Nova Promoters 342 ITR 169, CIT V NR Portfolio [2013]29 Taxmann.com 291 (Delhi), CIT v N Tarika Properties (ITA No. 2080/2010 dated 28.11.2013) etc wherein the Hon ble Delhi High Court has clearly held that reopening of assessment is justified in case of information received from the Investigation Wing and the onus is on the assessee to establish identity Creditworthiness of Creditors and Genuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO to reopen the assessment was bad in law. On merits also Ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of ₹ 68,17,050/-. Revenue is, therefore, before us in this appeal. 4. It is the argument of the Ld. DR that as is evident by the copy of the notice dated 22.3.2010 which the receipt dated 31.3.2010, there is proper service of notice on the assessee at its Maujpur, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi address. As stated, there is sufficient compliance of law, but the Ld. CIT(A) ignored the same. Per contra, the AR brought to our notice the remand report of the Ld. AO at page no. 40-41 of the Paper Book wherein it was stated that the notice was sent to the address of 304, Mayur Vihar, Phase-2, Delhi address, since the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s. 148 of the Act in this case. Ld. CIT(A) followed the binding precedents while reaching the conclusion that there is no valid notice of service in this case. We, therefore, find that the decisions of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. 281 ITR 1, CIT vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd., CIT (Central)-1 vs. Chetan Gupta ITA No. 1891/Del/2012 dated 15.9.2015, and CIT vs. Eshaan Holding P. Ltd. (2012) 344 ITR 541 (Del.) are applicable to the facts of the case for the principle that before issue the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, it is expected of the AO to have checked up if there is any change of address because valid service of notice of reopening the assessment is a jurisdictional matter and this is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
