TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ices to the assessee under section 148 on 26.03.1999 proposing to assess the escaped income. Notices were seems to have served on one Mr. D. Rambabu stated to be Authorised Representative by the A.O. on 17.06.1999. In response to the notice issued, the Managing Director Mr. Anilkumar Agarwal filed his written letter dated 24.06.1999 requested the A.O. to treat the belated returns as filed in response to the notice under section 148. Thereafter, the A.O. issued notices to assessee for which there was no response. One Mr. RVSRS Bhaskar Rao stated to be Accountant of the company appeared and expressed his inability to furnish the details asked for as at that stated time the person looking after the affairs had left the job due to non- payment of salary. As seen from the order, assessee sought time. However, there is no compliance even for the further dates. Since assessee's business receipts were not much and expenditure also not much, the A.O. accepted the net profit in the P & L account as such. However, on noticing that assessee had received share capital to an extent of Rs. 5,57,36,570/- in A.Y. 1995-96 and an amount of Rs. 2,47,25,910/- in A.Y. 1996- 97, brought these amounts as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....obtaining the reports, giving opportunity to assessee, confirmed the additions originally confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving any further relief. Therefore, assessee is aggrieved and preferred the present appeals for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. 5. When the notices were served on the Revenue, it realized belatedly, that assessee has not paid admitted tax and so appeals preferred by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) are not maintainable under section 249(4) of the I.T. Act, as the assessee has not paid admitted tax on the returned income. Since this was noticed at the time of present proceedings, Revenue filed cross objections with a delay of 1348 days seeking condonation of that delay as well, contending that appeals are not maintainable before the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Ld. Counsel contested the issue of reopening under section 147 stating that notice under section 147 was served on a person who was not an 'Authorised Representative' and further there was no notice issued under section 143(2) within the time provided and also contesting that the so-called accountant mentioned by the A.O. in the order was not assessee's Accountant. He reiterated the submissions made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no proper service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. It is contended that service of notice was illegal. As stated by the AO in the assessment order, in response notice u/s. 148 of the Act issued by him, which was served on the appellant company on 17.06.1999, the appellant vide its letter dated 24.06.1999 requested him to treat the return of income originally filed by them, as file response to said notice u/s. 148 of the Act. As seen from the order dated 09.08.2002, passed by the AO in response to the said 154 petition filed by appellant, such reply In response to the said notice u/s. 148 for treating the earlier filed return, as filed in response to such notice, has been filed/signed by its Managing Director. From the assessment record for both the assessment yeas, I find that while furnishing reply vide letter dated 24.06.1999, filed on 05.08.1999, the appellant, while acknowledging the receipt of the said notice u/s. 148 of the Act has submitted that the return of income already filed on 26.11.1998, may be treated as in compliance of the said notice u/s. 148 for each assessment year. Thereafter, in response to various notices issued by the AO, the representative of the appellant h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that after taking cumulative effect of all factors, service of notice on the Accountant would be sufficient and would be proper service u/s. 41 of the Wealth Tax Act. 5.3. In the case of ITO Vs. Smt. Gurinder Kaur (2006) (102 ITD 189) (Delhi), which was before the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench, the assessee has taken a plea that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, was not served on her. In that case, the said notice was served by affixture. It was stated there was no valid service of notice. However, after considering the compliance made by the appellant before the AO that the return already filed by her on 30.06.1993 might be taken as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148, the Hon'ble ITAT, held that it is not possible to accept such contention that the notice was not served on her. In this context, it is pertinent to reproduce the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, on the said issue (as per head note), which is as under - "So far as service of notice u/s. 148 is concerned, it is no doubt true that the service of the notice u/s. 148 is a condition precedent for the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, In the peculia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s afforded fullest opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The assessment was legal and valid". 5.5. Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Uttam Chand Nahar (2007)( 295 ITR 403) (Raj.), where the re-assessment notice was served on his adult son, the assessee has contended that there was no proper service of notice on him. However, after considering the fact that in response to the said notice issued by the AO, the assessee has participated in reassessment proceedings, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that there was a valid service of notice. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court further held that, If in response to the notice served on an adult member of his family, the assessee appears or participates In proceedings in compliance with the notice, the manner of service of notice becomes irrelevant. Since in that case, the assessee had filed his return of Income, in response to the notice served on his adult son and participated In the proceedings throughout, the Hon'ble High Court held that service of notice on the adult son of the assessee was proper. 5.6. Since in the instant case, the appellant has acknowledged the service of the said notices issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, considering the fact that Managing Director of the Company immediately thereafter, responded to the notice and filed letter requesting the A.O. to treat the return filed already as filed in response to the notice under section 148. This indicates that notice has ultimately reached Managing Director. If the said person on whom notice was served was not connected to company, it was not possible to the MD to respond with in seven days on 24.06.1999. Ld. CIT(A) discussed various case law on the issue of service of notice and we agree with those propositions. Since assessee's Managing Director has responded to the notices, it cannot be considered at this point of time that notice was not served on the correct person. Generally in most of the proceedings, Authorised Representatives or Accountants regularly appear before the authorities claiming that they represent the company/ assessee. Even before this Forum also many of the Counsels file their Power of Attorney or Vakalat stating to be representing the assessee. These are accepted in good faith. In view of this, the contentions raised by assessee company now that Revenue has not served the notice on the correct person nor the person....