TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,51,534, the assessee sought refund of Rs. 2,02,418. 3. The assessee received a letter dated 16 th March, 2008 from the ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad, requiring the assessee to submit original TDS certificate, advance tax challans and self-assessment tax challans pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08 to enable processing of the return of income submitted. The assessee submitted the required TDS certificates. However, the ACIT pointed out that the aggregate gross works contract as per the TDS certificate was higher than that appearing in the return of income, while the correct amount of TDS matched. The assessee also submitted a statement where the difference was identified to one of the receipts from the Airports Authority of India (AAI) towards works....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 9 th December, 2011, the assessee pointed out that the AO had adopted the total gross amount as per the TDS certificate as the contractual receipts and failed to notice that the said amount included the gross amount of interest of Rs. 2,91,569 on fixed deposit with Andhra Bank. 5. The AO completed the assessment and passed the order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28 th December 2011. The AO made additions to the tune of Rs. 1,12,76,482 to the income of Rs. 16,31,355 returned by the assessee and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,29,07,837. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee challenged the legality of assessment on the ground that the notice u/s. 148 was not served on the assessee and as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment. The order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed on 28 th December, 2011 well before the expiry of 30 days time provided in the notice u/s. 148 to the assessee for submission of return of income. It was pointed out that the said order was passed without the requisite notice u/s. 143(2) being served on the assessee. 8. The CIT(A), however, held that notice u/s. 148 was served upon the assessee and so were the other statutory notices and the assessee appeared before the AO only in response to this notice. The CIT(A) further observed that the only grievance of the assessee should be that no adequate opportunity for representation was given to the assessee before completion of the assessment order. The CIT(A) decided the issue in favour of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his is now being used against the department. It is humbly submitted that all conditions for reopening and assessment u / s 1471148 is duly satisfied by the AO and hence CIT(A) has correctly dismissed this ground of the assessee." 10. We have gone through the record and found that the CIT(A) in his order at page No. 4 had categorically mentioned that "the AO sent notice for service and the same was served on the assessee on 12.12.2011, the order of the assessment was finalised on 20.12.2011". The CIT(A) has himself accepted that 30 days time as provided in the notice u/s. 148 of the Act to the assessee for submission of the return of income has not been provided to the assessee and the assessment was finalised on 28.1.2012. Hence, we find ....