9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 6,41,470/- as business loss erred in directing the same to be allowed to be carried forward as business loss to be set-off against business income in the subsequent years. 2.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of interest expenditure of ₹ 15,48,694/- as business (and not for speculative business) by following his predecessors order. 3.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C1T(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of interest of ₹ 15,48,694/- as expenditure for business by following the predecessor s order dt.31.10.2005. 4.The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 143(2) as invalid and thereby treating the assessment as invalid.. 2.The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground(s) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored. 3.The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary. Additional grounds of appeal, filed for the same AY on 07.10.2009, read as under : 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law ,the Ld.CIT(A) erred in treating the business income on sale of stock of shares as Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 77,84,679/- on sale of shares. 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A)erred in allowing the relief on account of Travelli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AA, AO as well as the assessee filed appeal/crossobjections before the ITAT. In the cross-objections, assessee raised the question about service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. It was submitted by the Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee that notice was not been served on the assessee, that the address of the assessee was 124, NCPA Apartments, 12th Floor, B Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 which was duly mentioned in the return of income for the relevant A.Y. 2003-04, that AO had issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act had his old address i.e., 21 West View, first Pasta lane, Colaba, Mumbai, that there was no service of notice on the assess, that assessment made by the AO in absence of proper service of notice was legally invali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice of notice u/s.143(2)of the Act. Assessee referred to the order decided by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 2004-05,where the same issue was decided in faovur of the assessee. 2.4. After considering the submissions of the assessee, AO held that notice u/s. 143(2) generated by the computer on the basis of PAN of the assessee, that notice sent by Speed Post was received by one Madhuri , that assessee s representative had attended from time to time along with the assessee and had filed details called for, that during the course of assessment proceeding issue regarding service of notice was not raised by the assessee before the AO or the FAA, that impliedly assessee had received the statutory notice in time. Finally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice on the assessee, assessee had not raised the issue of notice of service before the AO during the first round of assessment proceedings. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that there was no valid service of notice in the case under consideration, that on the similar facts matter was decided in favour of the assessee for the AY 2004-05. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on file. Undisputed facts of the case under consideration can be summarised as under: i) Assessee was filing his returns of income from his Colaba address in earlier years. ii) From 2001,he started filing his returns from new address i.e., Nariman Point. iii)Notices/Assessment Orders were issued by the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led an appeal before the FAA. The first ground raised by the assessee before the FAA was about non-service of notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act within the prescribed/statutory time limit. Assessee submitted that the Assessment Order passed was illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed. The issue was discussed by the AO in the Assessment Order at para No.2 -he held that there was no substance in the objection raised by the AO, that the notice u/s. 143(2) dtd.26-10-2006 was sent to the assessee by Speed Post , that notice was acknowledged on 31.10.2006,that a further notice u/s.143(2) dtd. 26-10-2006 was also served by affixture on 31.10.2006 by the Ward Inspector, that a copy of the affixture report was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
