9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al objection was in the proper form. Such type of objection or information do not make any difference since the ITO has noted the facts of the case and accordingly the file was transferred but only on 18.01.2010, which in fact, could have been done immediately on 15.09.2009, keeping in view the provisions contained u/s 124(3)(a), but the same was not done. Treat the said information dated 15.09.2009 as legal objection u/124(3)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee and in the absence of any transfer order of the case from ITO, Bathinda, to ITO, Faridkot, the argument made by the learned DR do not help the revenue and the notice issued is bad in law and the assessment so made is directed to be quashed. Thus, ground no. 1 of the assessee i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 20,000/- in scrap account. vi. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of ₹ 18,512/- out of various expenses when the tax on the same were paid under FBT provisions. vii. That any other relief may kindly be granted to the assessee to which it is found entitled at the time of hearing appeal. 3) As regards ground no. 1 being the legal ground, the learned counsel for the assessee Mr. J.K. Gupta submitted that it is a case of registered firm. The assessee-firm has been filing the return of income since A.Y. 1995-96 onwards with the A.O., Ward 1(1), Bathinda. The case for the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e III. Reliance is also placed on 282 ITR 334 (Ker). 4) He further argued that the assessee has been filing the return of income since 1995-96 till date with ITO, Bathinda, and is being assessed regularly with ITO, Bathinda. He brought our attention to the latest notice under Section 143(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 issued by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Bathinda, which is placed on record. 5) He further argued that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.09.2009 and the Accountant of the assessee-firm Sh. Nitya Nand attended the proceeding before the A.O. where objection on behalf of the assessee was raised that the assessee is being assessed with the A.O., Bathinda and the copy of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same was not done. The first notice was issued by the A.O., Bathinda, only on 18.01.2010, as submitted hereinabove. 9) I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. 10) The return in the present case was e-filed on 29.09.2008 which was taken under scrutiny through CASS and accordingly statutory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.09.2009 fixing the case for 15.09.2009. The Accountant of the assessee-firm represented the matter who stated the case of the assessee was assessed with A.O., Bathinda and accordingly the assessee was required to file the copy of the return, etc. The objection of the learned CIT(A) is that this is an information which has been noted in the order-she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
