TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rule, 1962." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return declaring income of Rs.2,64,396 on 25.8.2006. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued but neither the assessee nor his representative attended the hearing. Subsequently, a number of notices were issued to the assessee and finally, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 29.9.2008, fixing the case for hearing on 7.10.2008 but nobody attended the hearing of the assessment proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Lastly, a show cause notice on 8.10.2008 was also issued to the assessee giving seven days time but the same remained unattended. In the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lling a report from the AO but the same was not confronted to the AO for examination and rebuttal. Therefore, the action of ld. CIT(A) was not justified. 5. The assessee's representative supported the impugned order and replied that the notices were issued by the AO but these were not duly served on the assessee. Therefore, the assessee prevented by submitting relevant evidence before the AO and addition was made on erroneous and baseless grounds. He also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) rightly admitted the additional evidence and the deletion made by him was on reasonable and justified grounds. 6. We have considered the rival arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the entire record before us. On bare reading of the impu....