TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at any time earlier to 1/4/2017, let alone the letter dated 5/12/2017 issued by the postal Department to say that the notice was handed over to the postal Department to be sent by speed post only on 30/6/2017 is not to be believed. On this factual situation, while applying the law laid down in the case of Kanubhai M Patel [ 2010 (7) TMI 704 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , we find that it is only 1/4/2017 that has to be taken as the date of dispatch because that is the date on which the notice is shown to have been handed over to the postal department for service. No material to rebut this conclusion is emanating from any independent source. For these reasons we hold that there is no notice that was issued in this matter well within this time stipulated under section 151 of the Act and the proceedings are barred by limitation. On this score the assessee is entitled to seek the crashing of proceedings under section 147 of the Act. We therefore, hold that the assessment order under section 147/143(3) of the Act cannot be sustained. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 9651 /Del/ 2019 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2021 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON BLE VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.06.2009 Jujeja Nagpal Construction Pvt. Ltd AAACY2881L 7. Yogi Properties Pvt. Ltd 100000 01.07.2009 Mayank MedilabPvt. Ltd AAACY2881L 8. Yogi Properties Pvt. Ltd 1300000 09.02.2010 Euphoria Capital Pvt. Ltd AAACY2881L Total 11200000 3. On the basis of the above information, reasons were recorded and reassessment proceedings were initiated by him by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2017 after obtaining necessary sanction u/s 151 of IT Act from the competent authority. However, no return was filed in response to the said notice. Subsequently, AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated 01.08.2017 and in response to that, the assessee asked for the original return filed to be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Acton 12,10.2017. During the reassessment proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onus to satisfy all three conditions in terms of provisions of section 68 of the Act. He, therefore, treated the aforesaid amount of ₹ 82,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of IT Act and added to the income of the assessee. Similarly, two amounts ₹ 15,00,000/- each (Total ₹ 30,00,000) received from At All Times Security Pvt. Ltd and Juneja Nagpal Constructions Pvt. Ltd respectively were also treated as unexplained under the said section and accordingly the additions were made. The unexplained commission charges @ 3% on the total additions of ₹ 1,12,000/- which amounted to ₹ 3,36,000/- was also added by AO to the income of the assessee. Finally, the total taxable income of assessee was determined to ₹ 1,15,36,000/- against the Nil income declared by assessee. 4. Assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A) on several grounds stating that the proceedings under section 147/143(3) of the Act are without jurisdiction illegal and unsustainable as no notice under section 148 was issued on or before 31/3/2017 on which date the limitation for issuance of such notice stood expired; that there was no application of mind or independent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice dispatch register wherein the SPA number was mentioned AS ED48167318IN instead of ED481673181IN, falling short of one numerical. Further, from the track consignment and screenshot of the speed post web portal, the assessee demonstrated before us that the speed post envelope was received by the postal Department on 30/6/2017 and the same was delivered to the addressee on 3/7/2017. 7. Ld. DR submitted before us that while despatching the notice by speed post, the same was sent by way of email. On a comparison of the email of the assessee given in the return of income with the email to which the learned Assessing Officer sent the notice, we find that the email ID of the assessee is mightyltd@gmail.com whereas the learned Assessing Officer sent the notice to mightltd@gmail.com, with the letter y missing. Obviously email address is incorrect and could not have been delivered. Though the learned Assessing Officer claimed to have centred the notice through ITBA portal also, Ld. AR demonstrated before us with reference to the screen shot of the ITBA portal which clearly shows that it was activated for the 1st time only when the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed and never befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
