9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wari, Sr. D.R. ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-14, New Delhi, dated 10th November, 2016 for the A.Y. 2011-2012 on the following grounds : 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of ₹ 8,00,000/- on account of Investment in M/s Unitech Limited, Signature Tower, South City, Gurgaon. The learned A.O. as well as CIT(A) has not looked into the documentary evidence filed by the assesse during the course of proceedings. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the enhancement of profit shown at ₹ 1,58,879/- to ₹ 10, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0th September, 2011. The case was selected for scrutiny by issuing notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act dated 07th September, 2012 fixing the hearing of the case on 18th September, 2012. This notice was sent through speed post. Detailed questionnaire were issued to the assessee on 09th January, 2013. Subsequently, various notices were issued under section 143(2)/142(1) from time to time. But, according to A.O, the assessee has avoided all the notices and did not file any reply. The A.O. ultimately, computed the income of assessee at ₹ 28,99,990 by making the additions of ₹ 11,22,619, ₹ 8 lakhs and ₹ 8,18,495. The appeal of assessee was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Learned Counsel for the Assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362. He has also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chetan Gupta 382 ITR 613 in which it was held that burden is on the Revenue to establish the service of notice and no material has been brought forward in the impugned matter to suggest the service of the notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. filed the copies of the notice under section 143(2) dated 07th September, 2012 along with address of the assessee as per data base and return filed along with copies of the order sheet. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decisions of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhsy Films (P.) Ltd., (2008) 301 ITR 69 (Del.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee is 290, V PO- Kapashera, New Delhi. The A.O. in the assessment order has mentioned that notice dated 07th September, 2012 have been issued to the assessee fixing hearing on 18th September, 2012 through Speed Post. However, the A.O. has not mentioned in the assessment order whether the said envelope containing the notice had been served upon the assessee or had been received back unserved. No order sheet for 18th September, 2012 on which date the compliance is to be made by the assessee has been recorded by the A.O. Copy of the order sheet filed on record suggests that after 07th September, 2012, A.O. did not record any order sheet on 18th September, 2012. The A.O. thereafter, recorded order sheet on 24th September, 2012 and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the additional ground of appeal so admitted. It may be noted here that when additional ground was admitted on 29th August, 2017, Ld. D.R. was directed to place on record the evidence of service of notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. However, the Ld. D.R. apart from filing copy of the notice under section 143(2) dated 07th September, 2012, bearing postal stamp, did not produce any evidence of service of the notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the above discussion, even the presumption could not be raised in favour of the Revenue that the notice under section 143(2) have been served upon the assessee within the period of limitation. In view of the above, I am of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
