9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs, there was no recording of proceeding before 08.08.2008. This, was long after the alleged service of notice by the deponent on the Assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessee was a company. There was noting on record to suggest that the notice, even if, served was on any person authorized by the Company to receive the same. AO had filed affidavit, claiming that the notice was duly served. However, Tribunal recorded that the said affidavit was not based on any personal knowledge of the deponent. It can thus be seen that on the basis of material on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Department failed to establish that the notice was duly served. Consequently, the stand of the Assessee that no such notice was se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to frame the Assessment. Before the Tribunal, this issue was also contested by the Assessee. The Tribunal held that there was no proof of service of notice on the Assessee, by making following observations: We find that the first entry in the assessment proceedings is dated 08.08.2008 and prior to that date there is nothing on the assessment records to show that any notice u/s. 143(2) was issued by the Assessing Officer except the copy of notice dated 20.10.2007 purported to be served on the assessee on 23.10.2007. From the alleged notice, we find that this notice was not sent through the process of registered post or postal authorities but the revenue has claimed that it was served personally on the assessee. This notice does not bear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the affidavit filed by the revenue as well as assessment u/s. 115WE(2) would not help the case of the revenue. As regards t he plea that the case of the assessee is covered u/s. 292 BB, it is pertinent to note that this provision has been inserted in the statute by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and, therefore, the provisions of section 292 BB are not applicable for the A.Y. under consideration. 3. It can be thus be seen that, the Tribunal has recorded that the notice was not dispatched through the postal authorities. It was claimed to have been served through personal service. The notice did not bear the name of the person or identification of the person to whom it was served. The notice merely contained the signatur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
