9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e eyes of the law when the record reveals that the notice was never served upon the assessee - A notice issued u/s 142 (1) was sent back by Shri Alik Farsaiya, the legal consultant on the reasoning that the notice did not belong to any of his clients. Another notice, allegedly, sent and received by Shri Mahesh, the alleged employee of Dr. Ajay Prakash, when it is found that he was not an employee of the assessee, cannot be said to be duly served – Decided against the Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 551 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2013 - Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani And Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,JJ. For the Appellant : Shambhu Chopra/S. C. For the Respondent : Rahul Agarwal ORDER We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son/employee of the assessee as per the past practice on the direction of the assessee i.e. a doctor/professional of well repute who is well known among the citizens of Agra and surrounding districts and also ignoring the position of law that direction/instruction can be given by a person/assessee either orally or in writing? The AO issued notice to the assessee u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee did not appear in the proceedings. The AO considered the service to be sufficient thereafter made various additions. The CIT (A) held that notice was sent at the wrong address. Sri Mahesh on whom the notice was allegedly served was not an employee of the assessee. The Tribunal found that the notice sent by speed post was on wrong address whereas th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 142 (1) was sent back by Shri Alik Farsaiya, the legal consultant on the reasoning that the notice did not belong to any of his clients. Anotehr notice, allegedly, sent and received by Shri Mahesh, the alleged employee of Dr. Ajay Prakash, when it is found that he was not an employee of the assessee, cannot be said to be duly served. The entire records were produced before the ld. CIT (A) and he found the above contention of the assessee to be correct. Unless a particular person is authorized to receive a notice as his agent, any notice served or received by him would not bind the assessee. In this case, nobody participated in the re-assessment proceedings and the objection regarding the service of notice was taken before ld. AO himself. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
