2013 (12) TMI 635

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rejecting the contention of the appellant. 2. The CIT(A) considering the facts of the case ought to have held that the order passed u/s.144 of the Act by the AO is without proper service of notice of hearing and without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and hence the same is illegal and bad in law." 3. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that no valid service of the notice of hearing was made by the department, within the statutory time of 12 months from the end of the month, in which the return of income was filed by the assessee. He submitted that the whole proceeding of the assessment in this case under Section 144 of the Act are invalid due to non-service of notice of hearing within the time al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he firm to the department. He relied on the decision of the Trilok Singh Dhillon v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 332 ITR 185. He relied on the order of the AO and the CIT(A). 5. The learned counsel for the assessee, in his rejoinder, submitted that the assessee firm was closed on 15.5.2003 i.e. much after the service of the first notice of hearing on 31.10.2002. He submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Chhatisgarh High Court relied upon by the learned DR is distinguishable, since in the case before the Hon'ble High Court, the assessee has filed its return in response to the notice issued by the department, whereas in the case of the present assessee the return of income was filed by the assessee already. He relied on the decision of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was authorised to receive any notice on behalf of the assessee-firm or was the representative of the assessee or that any power of attorney was executed by the assessee firm in favour of the said Chartered Accountant. In these facts of the case, it could not be said that the notice of hearing dated 29.10.2002 issued under Section 143(2) fixing the date of hearing on 14.11.2002 was validly served within the statutory period of 12 months from the end of the month in which the assessee has filed its return of income. The subsequent notice issued by the AO under section 143(2) was after the expiry of the statutory period of 12 months from the end of month in which the return of income was filed by the assessee. The assessee-firm was closed on ....