9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he first notice dated 10.02.2010 for 10.03.2010 was sent by speed post on 12.02.2010 and the same was received back unserved in the office of the CIT (A) and that the second and final notice dated 09.04.2010 for 23.04.2010 was sent by speed post on 10.04.2010 and the same had also been received back in the office of the CIT (A) on 21.04.2010, as available from the appeal record, thus, both the notices issued from the office of the CIT (A) remained unserved and the assessee did not at all come to know of the dates of hearing before the Ld. CIT (A). Thus it can be concluded that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from attending the proceedings, both before the AO as well as before the CIT (A) - remit this matter to the file of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, addition of Rs. 35,721/- (22356 + 13365) made for expenses shown as payable in the balance sheet, is absolutely illegal and un-justified in law as well as on merits. 2. The Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT (A), it is seen, have decided the matter ex parte qua the assessee. In this regard, the Assessing Officer has observed as follows:- Return declaring income of Rs.3,27,380/- was filed on 31.10.2006 which was processed u/s 143 (1) on 12.02.2007. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS . First notice u/s 143 (2) was issued on 09.08.2007. Thereafter, notice u/s 143 (2) was also issued on 16.07.2008. IN response to the notice, Shri Yash Pal, CA A.R. of the assessee attended assessment proceedings and filed details v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppearing on 16.12.2008; that if the assessee had been informed in this regard, he would have surely attended the proceedings before the Assessing Officer on 16.12.2008; that on inquiry from the CA by the assessee, the CA stated that he had to go out of station suddenly on 16.12.2008, which was the reason why the case remained unattended and the CA could also not inform the assessee about the same; that before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee s new counsel inspected the appeal record in the office of the CIT (A), wherefrom, it came to knowledge that the first notice dated 10.02.2010 for 10.03.2010 was sent by speed post on 12.02.2010 and the same was received back unserved in the office of the Ld. CIT (A); and that the second and final notice d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
