9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From the totality of these facts, we only say that the purported notice dated 18.11.2011 (photocopy of same is placed before us and claimed its service through affixture) lacks credence and cannot be relied upon. There is no contemporious evidence in support of this claim of the Revenue. On the other hand, all contemporious evidence supports the order of the CIT(A) that no notice u/s 143(2) was ever issued and served upon the assessee. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) wherein he held the assessment order to be invalid for want of issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and the same is upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 775 to 777/Ahd/2013, 111 to 113/Ahd/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2015 - SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Revenue : Shri Krishna Morari, CIT-DR, Shri Narendra Singh, Sr. DR For The Assessee : Shri S.N. Soparkar, AR ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: These are the appeals filed by the Revenue and Cross-objections filed by the assessee against three separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Valsad, all dated 31.12.2012, passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 30.06.2011- Hearing - 13.07.11- Received 09.07.11 Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 04.11.2011- Hearing 14.11.2011 Notice u/s. 142(1) dtd 17.11.2011- Hearing-25.11.2011-Received - 18.11.11 142(2A) approved by CIT, Valsad for Asstt. Years 2006-07 to 09-10 on 20.12.2011 received on 23.12.2011. Order u/s.120(5) received by the ACIT- 12.06.2012- Hearing fixed 18.06.12 Submission filed by the assessee - 18.06.12 Draft order sent for approval of the JCIT, Vapi-18.06.12 Order passed by the ACIT, Vapi u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 19.06.12. 4. From the above, it is evident that the CIT(A) himself has verified the assessment record and date-wise tabulated the issuance and service of notice upon the assessee. He also recorded at page No.17 of his order that it is seen from above that there was no proof of any such notice u/s 143(2) having been served upon the assessee. This fact is confirmed by the Assessing Officer during appellate proceedings. In view of above, he quashed the assessment order of re-assessment for assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), is in appeal before us. 5. At the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(1) along with a questionnaire. However, on enquiry from us, the ld. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that no notice u/s 143(2) dated 30.06.2011 is available on record. The ld. Departmental Representative also denied mentioning of issuance of any notice u/s 143(2) in the order sheet. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further referred to page 3 of the last paragraph of the assessment order and pointed out that the Assessing Officer has mentioned to the issuance of notice upon the assessee on 17.11.2011. This notice dated 17.11.2011 was duly served upon the assessee on 18.11.2011. This notice was u/s 142(1). He stated that when the Assessing Officer can mention about the issuance of notice u/s 142(1) from time to time, there could be no reason why the notice claimed to have been issued u/s 143(2) on 18.11.2011 is not mentioned anywhere in the assessment order or in the order-sheet. The ld. Counsel has further pointed out that when the notice u/s 142(1) dated 17.11.2011 was duly served upon the assessee on 18.11.2011, then why the notice dated 18.11.2011 claimed to have been issued u/s 143(2) could not be served upon the assessee. As per claim of the ld. Departmental Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e re-assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) has prepared this chart himself, after verification of the case record carefully. Thus, at the relevant time, on the assessment records, there was no copy of the notice u/s 143(2) and no evidence of affixture of any such notice upon the assessee. From the finding of the CIT(A) in paragraph 7.2 in page 17, it is evident that he confronted these facts to the Assessing Officer who must have appeared before him in person in response to which the Assessing Officer admitted about non-service of notice. Therefore, till the date of the order of the CIT(A) or till the date when the assessment records were produced before the CIT(A), the alleged notice claimed to have been issued u/s 143(2) on 18.11.2011 was not on record. Then, how come it subsequently surfaced. The ld. Departmental Representative tried to explain that there is a bulky assessment records and may be these notices might have been placed in some other files or might have escaped from the notice of the CIT(A). We are unable to agree with this submission of the ld. Departmental Representative. On going through the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer has meticulously mentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
