9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive such a notice by any advocate. Any power of attorney in the file is supposed to be attending the proceedings after filing the return by Chander Mohan who had no connection with dissolved firm as a partner. 2) That the issue of notice u/s 148 has to be in accordance with the provisions of section283 and sec. 140(CC) wherein the firm was dissolved on 23/08/1991 and in the erstwhile firm's partners were S/Sh. Hakikat Rai and Madan Lal, and one of the partner Sh. Madan Lal died in the month of January, 1995 whereas one of the surviving partner Sh. Kakikat Rai is very much alive and the notice should have been served on such person and also return to be signed by him only for validity of the notice. 3) Even if it is held to be valid service on an advocate which was later on engaged by the appellant firm, the said notice was not a valid notice as it was a blank notice without mention of the year concerned or the reasons thereto. The copy of the same is in Paper Book. 4) That it is a basic ingredient that there should be valid notice or valid service for acquiring the jurisdiction u/s 148 for which the CIT(A) is not justified in holding the same as valid. 5) That even if the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. ITO is against law and facts. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant firm proceedings u/s 147/148 are altogether, illegal, void and uncalled for. 3. That reassessment framed in the case of the firm through son of one of the deceased partner is bad in law. 4. That additions of Rs. 35827/- vide para 7 andRs. 3960/- vide para 8 are illegal and uncalled for. 5. That addition of Rs. 162162/- u/s 40A(3) vide para 9 is illegal. 6. That additions of Rs. 46017/- for so called difference in accounts of parties is illegal and out of mark." 3. The CIT(A) vide her order dated 25.01.2001 granted certain reliefs and the appeal was partly allowed. The appellant filed further appeal before the ITAT. During the appellant proceedings before the ITAT the AR of the appellant stated that while raising the grounds of appeal before ITAT the following grounds have not been raised by the appellant inadvertently: - a) "That ld. CIT(A) is not justified in adjudicating on the ground of appeal wherein issue of notice u/s 148 has been challenged. b) That the issue of notice is bad in law having no information or material to form belief of under assessment of income or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds: 1. No assessment year has been mentioned on the notice issued to the assessee, copy of which is enclosed. The column for asstt. Year has been left blank. 2. Notice has been served on Yashvir Arya who never submitted any Power of Attorney issued by the partners of the firm to receive notice." 7. The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contentions of appellant rejected the ground no. 2 raised by appellant in original appeal and also the additional grounds of appeal raised before ITAT. The relevant portion of CIT(A) orders are reproduced below: - "It is no doubt true that there should be a valid service of reassessment notice and such notice has to be served in terms of the Civil Procedure Code and the mere fact that the recipient of the notice was representing the assessee, would not be sufficient to hold that he was authorized to receive notice. However, where the assessee did not raise any objection any time before the Officer that the notice was served on the assessee personally or was not served on the agent who was empowered to receive notice and the assessee acted upon the notice by mind the return in pursuance of such notice, the objection regarding the validity of service o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice related and also had the knowledge of the proceedings. In such circumstances, any defect in the notice or the defect of person on whom the notice was served did not cause any prejudice. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law in favour of the revenue and allow the appeal and hold that the notice did not affect the reassessment. Ld. Counsel for the assessee points out that additions on merit have not been gone into by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. The parties may appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on October 04, 2010." 11. The assessee appeared before this Tribunal from time to time and finally the hearing was adjourned to 18.04.2012. On the date of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee appeared and contended that during reassessment proceedings the AO was satisfied with the explanation submitted by the assessee in respect of reasons recorded and did not make any addition on the basis of any of the recorded reasons but instead made additions on certain other points by making roving enquiries. In this respect he took us to page 1 of the Paper B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
