9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 340 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 144 Service of Notice - Following the judgement of Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh 1971 (8) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT held that - where the assessee contended that he had no place of business at the relevant time and the serving officer did not mention the names and addresses of the persons who identified the place of business of the assessee nor did mention that he personally knew the place of the business of the assessee, the service of notice must be held to be not in accordance with law. AO did not properly assume jurisdiction u/s 143(2) of the Act and he rightly cancelled the assessment framed by the A.O - no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by first appellate authority - Therefore, present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Validity of assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Disallowance of various additions made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Proper service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. Analysis: 1. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) canceling the assessment passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue contended that the assessment was completed properly, including the service of notices. However, the CIT(A) found issues with the service of notices and canceled the assessment. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's arguments had already been adjudicated in a previous case, where it was held that the affixture of notices must be done in the presence of two witnesses who identify the premises. As the present case lacked proper identification of the business premises, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the assessment. 2. In the Cross-Objection (C.O.), the assessee raised grounds against the additions made by the Assessing Officer, including the addition of initial capital, loans raised, and various expenses. The Tribunal found that these grounds did not directly relate to the impugned order by the CIT(A) and therefore dismissed the C.O. raised by the assessee. 3. The issue of proper service of notice under section 143(2) of the Act was crucial in this case. The Tribunal analyzed the notice served by the Assessing Officer and found deficiencies in the identification of the business premises where the notice was affixed. Citing legal precedents and the requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure, the Tribunal concluded that the notice was not validly served upon the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on previous judgments and the legal principles governing the service of notices. 4. The Tribunal also addressed a decision relied upon by the Revenue from the Punjab & Haryana High Court, emphasizing the differences in the facts of that case compared to the present matter. The Tribunal clarified that the decision cited by the Revenue was not applicable to the issues at hand regarding the service of notices through affixture. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross-Objection of the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the assessment due to deficiencies in the service of notices under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment was pronounced on 6th June 2012 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Amritsar.
|
