9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings and imposed the penalty was not authorized to exercise the power and perform the functions of the Assessing Officer and therefore, the said notice as well as the penalty order are invalid, null and void ab initio. 2. Notice, dated 22.8.2006, u/s. 142(1) of the Act directing the appellant to furnish the return of income was not served upon the appellant and even the penalty order speaks only about issuance of the notice and is totally silent regarding service thereof and the imposition of penalty, without service of the notice, is invalid, null and void ab initio. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that any other notice was not issued by the Ld. ACIT directing the Assessee to file the return of income. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Patiala House i.e. "Abhishek Verma, C/o Mr. Jitendra Garg, Advocate, Chamber 137, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi - 110 003 (Tel#+91.11.23388320)." On 10.10.2008 the assessee sent a leter by speed post which was received by the AO on 13.10.2008. In reply to the same, a letter was written to assessee on 15.10.2008 requesting for appearance through his Authorised Representative in the penalty proceedings and also stated that no further adjournment will be given to the assessee. On 23.10.2008 Sh. Sachin Kumar, Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared for hearing and produced the Power of Attorney. He was asked to file the details asked in the questionnaire. He was also shown copy of notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 22.8.2006 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000/- was imposed for failing to file the return of income, vide order dated 14.11.2008. Against the penalty order dated 14.11.2008, assessee appealed before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who vide his impugned order dated 22.01.2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee. Now the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal against the impugned order dated 22.1.2013 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the arguments advanced by the assessee before the revenue authorities and requested that the penalty in dispute may be deleted. 4. On the contrary, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi and stated that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee on 03.10.2008 when the assessee was in the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The assessee has also given his reply dated 06.10.2008 that he has not received the earlier notices and given the new address of his Advocate and he further sent a letter dated 10.10.2008 and argued that having not received the earlier notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act and there could not be any proceedings pending under the Act before the Assessing Officer meaning thereby the assessee is having the knowledge of all the notices which has already been served upon the assessee and he was watching the proceedings through his counsel/Authorised Representative. Assessee has also requested for various adjournments which was given by the Assessing Officer. Sh. Sachin K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
