We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Tax Appellate Tribunal orders fresh consideration by CIT(A) due to lack of proof of notice service. The ITAT remanded the case back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the Revenue another opportunity to present its case due to conflicting ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tax Appellate Tribunal orders fresh consideration by CIT(A) due to lack of proof of notice service.
The ITAT remanded the case back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the Revenue another opportunity to present its case due to conflicting arguments and lack of proof of service of notice under section 143(2). The departmental appeal and cross-objection were allowed for statistical purposes only.
Issues: 1. Validity of assessment order under section 144 read with section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 due to lack of proof of service of notice under section 143(2).
Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of assessment order under section 144 read with section 143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 due to lack of proof of service of notice under section 143(2): The Revenue raised grounds of appeal challenging the assessment order's validity, arguing that the Assessing Officer had issued and served the notice under section 143(2) through postal authorities at the address provided by the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer lacked proof of service of notice under section 143(2) based on the remand report. The Revenue contended that corroborative evidence existed in the form of dispatch register entries, which were initially untraceable but later found. They argued that it was the assessee's duty to update the address, justifying the notices sent to the available addresses. The Revenue sought another chance before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee, on the other hand, supported the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of proof of service. The ITAT observed the conflicting arguments and evidence. Considering the interests of justice, the ITAT remanded the appeal back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the Revenue another opportunity to present its case. The CO filed by the assessee was also remanded for further review by the ld. CIT(A) after addressing the service of notice issue.
In conclusion, the departmental appeal and cross-objection were allowed for statistical purposes only, with the order pronounced on 25.3.2019.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
