9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 143(2)(b). Thereafter notices under ss. 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act were issued. Since there was no compliance to the said notices the ITO completed the assessment under s. 144. While completing the said assessment the ITO made certain additions and determined the total income at Rs. 3,25,509. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who vide his impugned order cancelled the assessment made by the ITO. The learned CIT (A) noted that before making the assessment under s. 143(1) on 26th Aug., 1985 notices under s. 143(2) were issued a number of times and the assessee had either been seeking adjournment or complying with the requirements of the Assessing Officer. On these facts the CIT(A) held that the assessment made on26th Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor could it be for the simple reason that such an order was not appealable. According to the learned Deptl. Representative, the only course available to the assessee was to approach the CIT under s. 264 of the IT Act in case it is found that there was an error in the order passed by the ITO under s. 143(1). It was submitted that in the present appeal reference to s. 143(1) order was misplaced and misconceived. It was also pointed out that the order under s. 143(1) clearly stated that it was under that section and not under s. 143(3). It was also submitted that in the case the assessee was of the view that the order passed under s. 143(1) was actually under s. 143(3), then the assessee could have moved an application for rectification befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat nobody attended before the ITO on25th March, 1986. The CIT (A) has, however, noted that a letter dt. 22nd, March, 1986 was sent by registered post o the ITO and a copy of the said letter was delivered at the receipt counter of the Income tax Office on 24th March, 1986. There is nothing to dispute or controvert what the CIT(A) has noted in his order. The ITO was handicapped because the assessment was getting barred by limitation and the assessee did not appear before him. At the same time, there is no getting away from the fact that the main partner of the assessee-firm was under detention at that point of time and that is why perhaps the notice of the ITO could not be complied with. We, however, do not find any merits in the conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed his jurisdiction in interpreting the order passed under s. 143(1) of26th Aug., 1985as having been passed under s. 143(3). The ITO did give a notice to the assessee for compliance on25th March, 1986. None attended on behalf of the assessee before the ITO. An application for adjournment does appear to have been passed and to that extent the ITO's observation that no application for adjournment appears to have been filed does not sound correct, but the fact that the case was getting barred by limitation was staring in the face of the ITO and he had no alternative but to complete the proceedings before the case became barred by limitation. We also do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
