9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal: "On the facts and in circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in: - 1. holding the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 as bad in law on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not have the proof of service of notice u/s 143(2) either directly or through post without appreciating the fact that the corroborative evidences in the shape of office copy of notice u/s 143(2) and the entry recorded in the Dispatched Register clearly establish that the notice under this Section was issued and served through postal authorities upon the assessee at the address mentioned by the assessee in the return of income itself within the time specified under the Section. 2. holding the assessment or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s 143(2) on 24.9.2010 and 08.9.2010 by post. As per records, the aforesaid notices were not found to be not returned unserved. From this, it follows that the notices u/s 143(2) were served upon the assessee at the addresses provided by it in the return of income and its ROC's website. It may further be mentioned that the aforesaid facts were duly mentioned in the order passed u/s 143(3) on 29.12.2011." Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) sent another letter dated 17.1.2014 to the Assessing Officer asking to furnishing the proof of service of notice us/ 143(2). Therefore, the Assessing Officer filed another letter dated 20.2.2014, which is reproduced hereunder: "In this connection reference is invited to this office report on the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the fact that the corroborative evidences in the shape of office copy of notice u/s 143(2) and the entry recorded in the Dispatch Register clearly establish that the notice under this Section was issued and served through postal authorities upon the assessee at the address mentioned by the assessee in the return of income itself within the time specified under the Section. The corroborative evidences in the shape of the entry of dispatch of notice u/s 143(2) recorded in the Dispatch Register was not traceable in the office of the ITO Ward-1(1), Indore and which has now been traced out and available with the Assessing Officer. Further, the ld. CIT/DR argued that it was the duty of the assessee to intimate the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of dispatch of notice u/s 143(2) recorded in the Dispatch Register was not traceable in the office of the ITO Ward-1(1), Indore and which has now been traced out and available with the Assessing Officer. Further, the ld. CIT/DR argued that it was the duty of the assessee to intimate the Assessing Officer about the change of address and therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the notices on the addresses available on record. The ld. CIT/DR also argued that the Assessing Officer tried his best to serve the notice upon the assessee at the available addresses as mentioned in the order u/s 144 dated 29.12.2011 and subsequently, on the new address gathered from the ROC's website, thus, the Assessing Officer was not on default ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
