2012 (7) TMI 360

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the assessment ex - parte u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the notice was served after the due date. The grounds also make mention about the date of issue of notice to the assessee company and its Directors. 1.2 On the other hand, the revenue has taken up five grounds. The main ground Nos. 2 and 2.1 are against deleting the addition of Rs.16.38 lacs made by the AO u/s 40(a) (ia) for non-deduction of tax at source. The other ground No. 3 is in respect of deleting the additions made in respect of laundry expenses, housekeeping and service expenses, tax deducted at source on professional charges, property tax, TDS payable, VAT payable and donation. 1.3 As the grounds taken by the assessee are jurisdictional in nature, we proceed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tices were issued to Alok Narang and Atul Narang, the Directors on 24.9.2008. These notices were received by the Directors. However, these notices were issued to them in their individual capacity and not in the capacity of the Directors of the assessee - company. Therefore, these notices are invalid. The assessee had filed an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) that the notice issued to the assessee-company on 16.9.2008 was not received by it. Therefore, it is argued that in absence of service of notice u/s 143(2), no assessment could be made. 3.1 In reply, the Ld. R. DR referred to the findings of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A). It has been mentioned by the AO that notice has been issued to the assessee and served on him within prescribed time l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ope was properly addressed as the receipt merely showed the name of the assessee without its address. However, the assessee had filed an affidavit that it never received the notice. In these circumstances, the Tribunal had recorded a finding of fact that the burden was on the revenue to prove that the notice was served to the assessee within the prescribed time limit,. The revenue failed to do so. Therefore, it was held that no question of law arose from the facts of the case. The facts of this case are distinguishable for the reason that the assessee allegedly filed an affidavit that the notice was never received by it. No such affidavit exists in our case. Further, in the case of Prakash Ramji Gavali vs. ITO (2012) 21 Taxman. Com (534) (M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to the credit of Central Government. 5.1 The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that the tax was deducted on this amount and deposited to the credit of Central Government before 31.3.2007. Therefore, the amount could have not been disallowed as there was no violation of any statutory provision. It may be mentioned in this regard that evidences were filed in respect of this and other issues before the ld. CIT(A), which were admitted under Rule 46(A)(3) after giving the AO of an opportunity of being heard. 5.2 The Ld. Sr. DR has relied on the findings of the AO that no evidence was filed before him regarding deduction of tax at source and payment thereof to the credit of Central Govt. However, references have also been made to var....