9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispatched by the registered post either not received back or received back with endorsement ‘’refused’’ is deemed service.. Thus the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. - ITA No. 719/JP/2012, C.O. No. 9/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2017 - Shri Bhagchand, AM And Shri Kul Bharat, JM Revenue by : Shri Prakash Meena, JCIT - DR Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA ORDER Per Bhagchand, AM The Revenue has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Alwar dated 09-05-2012 for the assessment year 1998-99. The assessee has filed the C.O. 2.1 The Revenue has raised the following ground. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in quashing the assessment made u/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsulted different tax practitioners and finally after wide consultation came to the conclusion that a cross objection may be filed in this regard. This resulted into delay in filing the cross objection before the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur. 4.2 The ld. AR of the assessee during the course of relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987),167 ITR 471 and M/s. GMG Engineering Industries vs. M/s. Issa Green Power Solution (Civil Appeal No. 4473/2015) with A.C. Govindaraj and Ors vs. M Krishnammorthy Ors (Civil Appeal No. 4473/2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji observed as under:- The Legislature h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the ld. AR of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated upon the ground of appeal relating to the addition of ₹ 67,94,526/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the case laws relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee (supra), the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the solitary ground raised by the assessee in its C.O. (supra) in the interest of equity and justice is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide it denovo by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus the solitary ground raised by the assessee in its C.O. is allowed for statistical purposes. 5.1 Apropos solitary ground of the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the months in which the return was furnished i.e. on or before 30-11-1999. From the above para it is clear that there was no valid service of notice u/s 143(2) in this case on or before 30-11-1999. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that since there was no valid service of notice within the time limit laid down as per Section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, the subsequent proceedings and the assessment order u/s 143(3) is found to be without jurisdiction and invalid. Therefore, the assessment order u/s 143(3) in this case is hereby quashed. 4.4 Since the assessment order has been quashed the addition of ₹ 67,94,526/- u/s 68 of the Act no longer survives. Therefore, there is no need to separately adjudicate on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered office at E-292, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Alwar. The intimation u/s 143 (1) for the relevant assessment year was sent by the Department in the name of the assessee company i.e. M/s. Amil Medicaments (I) Ltd. The AO issued notice u/s 143(2) on 15- 09-1999 through registered AD to the assessee company. The address mentioned in the said notice was E-292, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Alwar. However, the said notice came back unserved with the remarks of the postal authorities there is no such firm on this plot hence returned dated 17-09-1999 . Subsequently, another notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) and questionnaire was sent by the AO on 28-02-2002 in the name of M/s.Sudman Laboratories Ltd. The address mentioned in the said notice was F-292, Indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
