9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Ld. CIT(A) on 16.01.2014. The assessee's submissions are recorded in the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A), however, in the absence of any specific application for condonation of delay and considering the material on record, dismissed the appeal of assessee holding it to be time barred. 3. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the Assessee pointed-out that the assessee has filed the appeal within the period of limitation. The assessee in Form-35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned 19.12.2013 as date of service of impugned order. He has submitted that in this case draft assessment order under section 144C was passed on 15.03.2013 [PB-1]. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that case of the Department had been that the final assessment order have been served upon the assessee through affixture, copy of which is filed at page-25 of the PB Dated 30.05.2013. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that it is no where provided if Department made any attempt to serve the assessee personally and that there is no witness to the affixture report, therefore, affixture report is invalid. He has relied upon Order of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Ketan V Shah vs., ACIT, Central-11, Mumbai [2010] 7 taxmann.com 88 (Mum.) in which it was held that "without exhausting other ordinary mode of services, service through affixture is not proper service." Learned Counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue contended that assessee have been served through affixure on 30.05.2013, but, nothing is produced before us if any, attempt have been made by the A.O. to serve the assessee through registered post or through personally before serving the notice through affixture. Even the affixture report did not show if the same is witnessed by any independent person. Since address of the assessee is correct as per affixture report as well as address mentioned in the impugned orders, there is no question of serving the assessee through affixture against the address of the assessee is correct. These facts clearly show that assessee has not been served with the impugned assessment order in ordinary course of business. It is also a fact that assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quest for condonation of delay in statement of facts, that is sufficient for Ld. CIT(A) to deal with the submission of the assessee whether to the condone the delay in filing the appeal or not ? Therefore, such is not a relevant reason to reject the claim of assessee. Considering the above discussion, it is clear that appeal of assessee was filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, there is no occasion for the Ld. CIT(A) to hold that appeal of assessee is time barred and should not be admitted to decide on merits. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hold that appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) is within the time. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is restored to the file o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
