TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable in the eye of law therefore, cancel the assessment order and impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Service of notice under section 148 of the Act on the assessee is a jurisdictional requirement and must be mandatory complied with and it should be in accordance with section 282(1) of the Act read with Rule Order V Rule 12 CPC and Order III Rule 6 CPC. The onus on the Revenue to show that proper service of notice has been affected on the issue or agent duly empowered by him to accept the notices. As not seen any evidence on record regarding service of notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 9816,9817/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 31-12-2020 - SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... competent to justify the initiation of reasstt. proceedings. 6. That under the facts and circumstances there is no justification in law and on merits in making and sustaining addition of ₹ 29,05,378/- u/s.68 on the basis of information as per 26AS, TDS form. 7. That under the facts and circumstance Ld. A.O erred in not giving the benefit of TDS as per form 26AS, after taxing the income on which TDS has been deducted. 2. In this case, an information received on NMS Portal that the assessee company has received a sum of ₹ 29,05,378/- which was not returned and brought to tax in the total income of the assessee company for the Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11. It was further seen that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards order passed by the Revenue authorities and one paper book containing page 1 to 66 in which he has attached Index of paper book, public notice of MCA 27.04.2017, notice of striking off and dissolution dated 30.06.2017, master data of co. from MCA website, form 26A, sub. to CIT(A) dated 04.10.2019, Delhi ITAT in Anujay Hycare Products (P) Ltd., Delhi High Court CIT vs. Vived Marketing Services (P) Ltd., Delhi ITAT- IMPSAT (P) LTD VS. ITO, Delhi High Court Pr. CIT vs. vs. Nokia Solutions Network India (P) Ltd., Delhi High Court Pr. CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Delhi High Court Spice Infotainment Ltd. vs. CIT, Delhi ITAT-Galaxy Technosys Pvt. Ltd., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arious case laws which includes CIT vs. Chetan Gupta (2015) 126 DTR 401 (Del), CIT vs. Mani Kakar 18 DTR (Del) 145 and Smt. S. Nachiar vs. ITO 326 77 (Del). He requested that the impugned order passed by the Revenue authority may be cancelled by accepting the appeal filed by the assessee. No doubt, the learned counsel for the assessee has also argued on all the issues involved in the ground of appeal and also filed written submission which is on record. 6. The learned Sr. DR relied upon the order passed by the Revenue authorities and stated that the Assessing Officer has served the notice upon the assessee on the address given by the assessee in the return of income but the assessee non cooperative before the Assessing Officer has rightl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cludes CIT vs. Chetan Gupta (2015) 126 DTR 401 (Del.), CIT vs. Mani Kakar 18 DTR (Del) 145 and Smt. S. Nachiar vs. ITO 326 ITR 77 (Del.), in which it is held that service of notice under section 148 of the Act on the assessee is a jurisdictional requirement and must be mandatory complied with and it should be in accordance with section 282(1) of the Act read with Rule Order V Rule 12 CPC and Order III Rule 6 CPC. The onus on the Revenue to show that proper service of notice has been affected on the issue or agent duly empowered by him to accept the notices. I have not seen any evidence on record regarding service of notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. 9. Keeping the facts and circumstances of the present case and the provision of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the charges i.e. for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as for concealment of income, which makes the penalty order invalid in law. 4. That the Ld. A.O. erred in law and on merits in invoking provisions of sec.271 (1) (c) for the additions of ₹ 29,05,378/- on the basis of Form 26 AS and in levying penalty u/s.271 (1) (c). 5. That without prejudice, the penalty of ₹ 8,97,760/- u/s.271(1 )(c) is unsustainable even on merits. 11. Since, I have allowed appeal filed by the assessee in quantum i.e. ITA No. 9816/Del/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 and deleted the addition on which the present penalty has been imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned First Appellate Authority. Hence, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
