9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee - ITA.No.901/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 14-5-2018 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Somil Aggarwal and Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocates For The Revenue : Smt. Asheema Neb, Sr. D.R. ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad, dated 16th December, 2015, for the A.Y. 2006-2007, challenging the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs received from M/s. Hill Ridge Investment Ltd., on account of share capital. Earlier, appeal of the assessee were dismissed for default. However, by allowing M.A. of the assessee, the appeal was re-fixed for hearing on merit. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that assessee is a company filed return of income declaring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of the case. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 147/143(3) and that too without issuing/serving the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) as per law. 4. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that these are legal in nature and may be admitted for hearing and no fresh facts are required for disposal of additional grounds. There is no challenge to the request of admission of the additional grounds of appeal by the Ld. D.R. Considering these additional grounds are legal in nature which are also not opposed by the Revenue, I admit the additional grounds for the purpose of disposal of the appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on the notice itself. No such contention was raised before the lower appellate authorities. Consequently, the said contention cannot be raised before the Court for the first time. The appellant has stated that the return was filed by the assessee on 27th March, 2000 and the notice under s. 143(2) was served upon the Authorized Representative of the assessee by hand when the Authorized Representative of the assessee came and filed return. However, the date of the notice was mistakenly mentioned as 23rd March, 2000. Assuming the aforesaid to be true, the notice was served on the Authorized Representative simultaneously on his filing the return which clearly indicates that the notice was ready even prior to the filing of the return. The pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of assessee may be dismissed. 8. After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (supra) and Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Shri Harsh Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(3), New Delhi (supra). It is an admitted fact that assessee filed reply in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act on 26.11.2013 and submitted before A.O. that original return filed before him may be treated as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. on the same day served notice under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
