9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 - - - Dated:- 2-2-2012 - ARUN MISHRA, PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL, JJ. JUDGMENT Heard on the question of admission. 2. The appeal has been preferred as against the order dated April 28, 2011, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, dismissing the appeal and as against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Alwar, dismissing the appeal, vide order dated October 12, 2010. 3. Two questions are raised in the appeal that notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has not been served upon the appellant within the prescribed period of limitation, secondly, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessment in the wrong status of association of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax (Appeals) has affirmed the order as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby the instant appeal has been preferred. 5. Shri Manoj Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that notice was not served upon it under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act. It is also submitted that assessment could not have been made in the capacity of AOP (association of persons), but it should have been made in the capacity of partnership firm. 6. With respect to the assessment being made in the capacity of association of persons, discussion has been made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that certified copy of the partnership deed was required to be filed along with the return, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The notice server has been given a report has been served on Smt. Anita backside of the notice contains the names of the all the partners. The assessment record shows that the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 143(2) on May 28, 2007, and this notice stands received by Shri Rajeev Goyal, who filed adjournment application dated October 31, 2006, in which it was stated that the hearing be adjourned for one month (perhaps the date and year typed may be wrong). Shri Rajeev Goyal, vide letter dated October 16, 2007, raised the plea for the first time that no notice under section 143(2) has been issued within the period of twelve months. In this letter Sh. Rajeev Goyal has referred to the notices dated September 28, 2007, and Octob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
