TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1154/Ahd/2004 for A.Y.2004-2005, which was a mistake apparent from the record. Accordingly, the issue raised in the ground no.2 again came up before us for adjudication to that extent only. 3. The ground no.2 raised in the appeal of the assessee being descriptive in nature, the assessee filed a concise ground which reads as under: "i. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the erroneous finding of the AO that the notice u/s.143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued and served on the assessee while the fact of the case is contrary. 3. Before us the issue is validity of assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The brief facts leading to the present issue is that, the assessee is a Marketing Committee claiming its status as "AOP" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... treatment of status of the assessee by the AO is not before us in this ground of the appeal, as we are restricted to adjudicate the issue of non-receipt of notice by the assessee under Section 143(2) issued on 17.3.2005 by the AO. The issue of non-receipt of notice has been agitated by the assessee before the CIT(A) which was considered by the CIT(A) vide para-4 as under: ".... The matter was remanded to the AO who vide letter dated 12.12.2007 has confirmed of having issued notice u/s.143(2) on 17.3.2004. The notice finds reference in the submissions made by the appellant on 27.08.2006 as well as the statement of facts filed along with the appeal. This issue is therefore, rejected." 4. The assessee before us challenges the validity o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 143(2) dated 17.3.2005 and 2.5.2006 and the date of issue, which remained unanswered till now. It appears that the Department might have addressed the notices to some other identical assessees and not to the present assessee. It is therefore submitted that since no notice has been received by the assessee, as mentioned in the orders under challenge, the entire assessment order under Section 143(3) is without basis and hence bad in law and void ab initio. In support of his contentions, he relied on the decision in the case of DCIT Vs. Mahi Valley Hotel Resort, (2006) 93 Taxation 418 (Guj) and the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Vishal Gupta, 172 Taxation 457 (P&H). 5. The learned DR, on the other hand relied on the orders of the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of the office of the Assessing Officer, notice us/.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were again issued on 2.5.2006 and served upon the assessee. The AO also noted that a detailed questionnaire issued on 21.08.2006 alongwith notice u/s.142(1) and were served upon the assessee. It was also recorded in the assessment order that in response to the notices, Shri S.P.Bhatt, advocate and authorized representative of the assessee along with Shri V.M. Pandit, Secretary of the Committee attended from time to time and the case was heard. The AO further noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed an application dated 20.08.2006 along with various details, requesting for change of status of the assessee from "AOP" to "Local ....