9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the A.O - no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by first appellate authority - Therefore, present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 367(Asr)/2011 C.O. No.24(Asr)/2011 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2012 - SH. H.S. SIDHU, AND SH. B.P.JAIN, JJ. Department By: Sh. Tarsem Lal, DR Assessee By: Sh. M.R. Bhagat, DR ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Jalandhar, dated 24.03.2011 for the assessment year 2005-06 on the following grounds: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in canceling the assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without adjudicating the case on its m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the business for incurring those expenses. It is prayed that addition of Rs.75,000/- may be deleted. 2. The facts narrated by the Revenue are not disputed by both the parties. Therefore, there is no need to repeat the same for the sake of convenience. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO and stated that the AO has rightly completed assessment u/s 144 of the Act. He further stated that before completion of the assessment in dispute, the AO issued notice under section 142(1) by registered post on 12.12.2007 and again on 13.12.2007 and another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and it was also served by affixture on 13.12.2007 by Inspector of the AO s office and witnessed by Sr. TA of his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor the Inspector who has signed the affixture, mentioned that they had identified the house in which the assessee firm carried out the business. Therefore, the notice u/s 143(2) dated 20.10.2006 was not served validly on the assessee. The Ld. first appellate authority has rightly appreciated and decided the issued in favour of the assessee by respectfully following the order of this Bench in the case of ITO vs. Sh. Satnam Singh, in ITA No.436(Asr)/2008 dated 07.05.2010. He requested that the appeal filed by the Revenue be dismissed. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant materials available with us. We are of the considered opinion that identical issue which the Revenue has raised in the aforesaid grounds of appeal ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ham Sharma) Income Tax Officer, Nakodar. A copy of above notice is pasted at the Notice Board of this office. Sd/- (Ghansham Sharma) Income Tax Officer, Nakodar. Affixed V.K. Joshi, Inspector 20.10.2010 Sr. TA sd/ 20.10.2006 7.1. Keeping in view the aforesaid notice u/s 143(2) dated 20.10.2006, we are of the view that the AO did not properly assumed jurisdiction under section 143(2) of the Act. Even we also find that neither the notice server nor Inspector, who has signed affixture order dated 20.10.2006 has mentioned that they had identified the house in which the assessee-firm carried on the business. We also found that there is no endorsement of any other person having identified the last known business/off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by respectfully following the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh 82 ITR 888 (supra) as well as the order passed by this Bench in the case of ITO vs. Sh. Satnam Singh, in ITA No.436(Asr)/2008 (supra) and C.O. No.58(Asr)/2008 (arising out of ITA No.436(Asr)/2008) dated 7th May, 2010 (supra) on the similar issue, has rightly declared that the AO did not properly assume jurisdiction u/s 143(2) of the Act and he rightly cancelled the assessment framed by the A.O. We are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the ld. first appellate authority. Therefore, present appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 7.2. As regards the decision relied upon by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
