TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss on which the said notices were sent by the Ld. AO was either incomplete or incorrect is not tenable Whether additional/fresh evidence was taken into consideration by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? - HELD THAT:- AO by its report dated 26.03.2018 submitted its response to the fresh evidence of the appellant and rejected the same and recommended that the grounds raised by the appellant were neither maintainable nor acceptable in the eyes of the law and the appeal of the appellant deserved to be dismissed by this office. No substantial question(s) of law - Income Tax Appeal No. 13 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2020 - Biswanath Somadder And Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,JJ. For the Appellant : Chandra Bhan Gupta For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rma in Dadri and the post office might have ended up serving the notices of the Ld. AO to any one of those persons named Manoj. It was contended by the appellant that merely because the notices sent by the Ld. AO were not returned by the postal authorities it cannot be presumed that those notices stood served upon the appellant and the service of notice was complete in terms of the provisions of law. Based upon such logic, the appellant has contended that there was no service of notice u/s 148 and therefore, the impugned assessment order was bad in law and liable to be deleted. 11. The ground taken by the appellant stands negated by the admitted position of the appellant himself. 12. The appellant has stated in its reply to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receive the notices issued by the Ld. AO because of the address on which the said notices were sent by the Ld. AO was either incomplete or incorrect is not tenable. 4. So far as the second question is concerned, the answer to the same is at paragraph 8 of the said order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)I dated 11th May, 2018, which reads as follows: 8. The Ld. AO by its report dated 26.03.2018 submitted its response to the fresh evidence of the appellant and rejected the same and recommended that the grounds raised by the appellant were neither maintainable nor acceptable in the eyes of the law and the appeal of the appellant deserved to be dismissed by this office. 5. Both these issues were considered by the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
