9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1198 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - invalid notice - whether for the year under consideration notice u/s 143(2) was served upon the assessee? - Held that - Apart from the photocopy of the notice now placed before us, there is no evidence that any such notice was actually issued to the assessee. The notice claimed to have been served by affixture on the ground that on 18.11.2011 the assessee s premises was closed and therefore, notice could not be served by notice server. However, on perusal of the chronological events of the issuance and service of notice as mentioned by the CIT(A), it is evident that one notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 17.11.2011 which was duly served upon the assessee on 18.11.2011. When the notice u/s 142(1) can be served upon the assessee on 18.11.2011 through notice server, how the premises of the assessee is claimed to be closed for the service of notice u/s 143(2). From the chronology of date-wise events, we find that several notices and orders were issued from time to time and each and every notice/order have been duly served at the same premises. From the totality of these facts, we only say that the purported notice dated 18.11.2011 (photocopy of same is placed before us and claimed its service through affixture) lacks credence and cannot be relied upon. There is no contemporious evidence in support of this claim of the Revenue. On the other hand, all contemporious evidence supports the order of the CIT(A) that no notice u/s 143(2) was ever issued and served upon the assessee. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) wherein he held the assessment order to be invalid for want of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and the same is upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
Appeals and cross-objections against assessment orders for AY 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09; Validity of assessment order due to non-service of notice u/s 143(2). Analysis: 1. Validity of Assessment Order for AY 2006-07: - The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order due to the absence of notice u/s 143(2) before passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147. - The CIT(A) meticulously examined the assessment record and found no proof of notice u/s 143(2) being served upon the assessee. - The Revenue submitted evidence of service of notice u/s 143(2) by way of affixture, claiming the CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order. - The assessee's counsel argued that the notice u/s 143(2) dated 18.11.2011 was not mentioned in the assessment order, and discrepancies in the records raised doubts on its issuance and service. - The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confronted the Assessing Officer about the non-service of notice u/s 143(2), and no contemporaneous evidence supported the Revenue's claim of serving the notice through affixture. - Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling the assessment order invalid due to the absence of notice u/s 143(2). 2. Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09: - The facts for these years were similar to AY 2006-07, leading to the quashing of the assessment orders by the CIT(A). - As the assessment orders were invalidated, other grounds raised in the appeals and cross-objections became irrelevant for adjudication. - Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and treated the assessee's cross-objections as infructuous for these years. In conclusion, all appeals by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee were dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment orders for AY 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09 due to the absence of a valid notice u/s 143(2) before passing the assessment orders.
|
