9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS/AIR and notice u/s. 143(2) was served on 5.7.2007. There was no response to this notice. A letter dated 26.5.2008 was issued fixing the date of hearing on 9.6,2008. In response to this letter, Authorised Representative of the assessee appeared and sought time to file the details. On 7.11.2008 notice under S.143(2) and 142(1) was issued calling for certain information and fixing the hearing on 15.11.2008, along with a final opportunity letter issued, fixing the hearing. However, neither the assessee nor his representative appeared in spite of issuing the notices and letters. Thereafter, a notice was tried to be served through the Inspector, who reported that the assessee has left the premises, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mand report from the Assessing Officer, and on considering the same, the CIT(A) concluded that as per S.292BB of the Act, the proceedings were not vitiated because the Authorised Representative of the assessee has appeared during the assessment proceedings ad did not object to the notices, and accordingly rejected the contentions of the assessee in that behalf. Further, during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), the assessee filed a petition seeking admission of additional evidence with respect to the additions made by the AO. After calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer on the admissibility of the said additional evidence, and on consideration of the submissions of the assessee on various additions made in the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Rajendra Prasad in ITA Nos. 637/Hyd/2011 & 768/Hyd/2011 vide order dated 07/09/2012 dismissed the grounds by observing as follows: "Section 292 BB of the Act was brought to the statute by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1-4-2008. The Special Bench of ITAT in the case of Kuber Tobbacco (P) Ltd. (supra) held that section 292BB is applicable to the assessment year 2008-09 and subsequent years. However, Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Om Sons Technologies vs. CIT 60 DTR 393 held that the provisions of section 292BB shall be applicable to all the pending proceedings as on 1-4-2008. A co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.1557/Hyd/2010 dated 26-12-2011 in case of M/s Navayuga Spatial Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (supra) al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Department. We are afraid, such a plea cannot be accepted, for the reason that the provision of s. 292BB is only a procedural one, and as such, it applies to all the pending proceedings, irrespective of the assessment years, to which they relate, as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Om Sons International vs. CIT (2011) 60 DTR ( P& H) 393, wherein it was held- "... The provision has been made effective from 1 st April, 2008 and therefore, shall apply to all pending proceedings. The CBDT issued Circular No.1 of 2009 dt. 27 t h March, 2009 (2009) 222 CTR (St) 69: (2009) 310 ITR (ST) 42) giving explanatory notes on the provisions relating to direct taxes contained in Finance Act, 2008 clause 42.7 (at p. 86 of the repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be considered as per in curiam, cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that this Tribunal is not competent to hold a judgment of the High Court as per in curiam. We also find that the decisions relied upon by the learned AR in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (321 ITR 362), CIT vs. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal (345 ITR 29) and Maxima Systems (344 ITR 204) are factually distinguishable in the sense that in those cases notice u/s 143(2) was not at all issued and section 292BB was not considered. Considering the fact that the assessee has not raised any objection before the AO with regard to issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and the assessment order has been passed within the period of limitation, we are of the view that the assessee is precluded from rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome. Further, the Assessee is estopped from raising plea of issuing invalid notice as he has participated and appeared for hearing before the AO and only later on the assessee found mistake in service of the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee that notice was not issued in time cannot be accepted. In these circumstances, the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Rajendra Prasad (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, respectfully following the same, ground Nos. 2 & 3 are dismissed. 7. As regards ground No. 4 pertaining to the addition of Rs. 11,17,000/- on account of unsecured loans from Mrs. Maya Devi, the assessee had shown that there is a debit on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
