9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee has refused to accept the notice and then they have decided on their own to get the service affected on 27.03.2003 through affixture goes to prove that no effort has been made by the Revenue to serve the notice u/s 148 upon the assessee rather paper work has been completed within two days. Revenue is not aware till passing of the assessment orders after a period of one year from the date of alleged service through affixture as to what was the fate of notice sent through speed post. The entire exercise of completing assessment without service of notice upon the assessee has been made in haste. It is humanly not possible to believe that service of notice through registered post can be affected on the same date i.e. 26.03.2003 on which it was issued/posted. Moreover, perusal of the assessment record produced by the Revenue during the course of argument goes to prove that the notice u/s 148 has never been issued at the registered office address of the assessee at Delhi registered with ROC, Delhi and Haryana. So, we are of the considered view that when no valid notice u/s 148 has ever been served upon the assessee either through registered post or through affixture necessary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Office in Delhi , Registered with ROC Delhi and Haryana , being controlled by the Directors from Delhi and also filing its return in Delhi, thus making his order illegal and bad in law. ii) in confirming the addition of ₹ 66,484/- as unexplained investment in the purchase of Maruti Zen car for ₹ 3,36,173/- while accepting the investment of ₹ 2,69,689/-. 2. Briefly stated facts of this case are : the assessee company is into the business of export of jewellery. On the basis of report received form Additional Director Income-tax (Inv.), Ghaziabad, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuance of the notice dated 27.03.2003 u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee by registered post and subsequently by affixture. On failure of the assessee to file any return, AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by perusing the balance sheet and profit loss account for different assessment year. In AY 1996-97, AO made addition of ₹ 3,71,250/- being the profit @ 15% of the balance gold on account of business income as the assessee has made sale to the extent of ₹ 4,50,000/- only as against the purchase of gold to the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndisputedly, the opening lines of the assessment order apparently contains the fact that, notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2003 was served upon the assessee on 26.03.2003 by registered post and subsequently by affixture on 27.03.2003 and in compliance to the said notice, no return of income was filed by the assessee within stipulated period. 9. During the course of hearing, ld. Senior DR was called upon to bring on record the summons sent through registered post with receipt/acknowledgement issued by the Postal Department, summons reported to be served through affixture for both the assessment years i.e. 1996-97 1997-98 to work out if the assessee was ever served upon in this case before passing of the assessment order u/s 147/144 of the Act. Ld. Senior DR filed summary of the facts along with copies of the summons reported to be issued through registered post as well as through affixture. The summary of the facts brought on record by the ld. Senior DR by way of synopsis is reproduced as under for ready perusal :- Sub: Appeal in the case of M/s Auram Jewellery Export (P) ltd, in ITA No. 1653 1654/De1/2011for the A.Ys. 1996-97 1997-98 - reg. Kindly refer to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as per the I.T. Act, 1961. 10. Bare scrutiny of the synopsis filed by the ld. Senior DR supported with copies of notices issued u/ 148 dated 26.03.2003 and 27.03.2003 and assessment order passed in both the appeals by the AO apparently goes to prove that when notices u/s 148 were sent through speed post on the various known addresses of the assessee on 26.03.2003 then what was tearing hurry to issue the second notice dated 27.03.2003 to be served through two Inspectors of the Revenue without waiting for the outcome of the notices issued through speed post who have reported vide report dated 27.03.2003, that after repeated calls no body opened the door and Chowkidar also refused to receive the notice and they are left with no option but to affix the notice on the main gate of the said premises. 11. First of all, bare perusal of the notice dated 27.03.2003 allegedly refused by Chowkidar of the assessee company as reported by Inspectors of the Revenue, goes to prove that this is an exercise in futility because neither name of the Chowkidar has been mentioned who has refused to accept the notice nor the factum of refusal by the Chowkidar has been got attested from any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
