TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the previous year ending 31.03.2000. The case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was dispatched by the Income Tax Authorities on 30.10.2001. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, sent further notices for the purposes of the scrutiny assessment. In response to the said notices, Mr Nihal Chand, one of the then partners of the assessee firm, appeared before the Assessing Officer. He, however, showed his inability to produce any accounts or other details as sought by the Assessing Officer. He stated that there were certain disputes between the partners of the assessee firm and a suit being CS(OS) No.981/2001 had been instituted in this Court. In those proceedings, the Court had appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and sign the books of accounts relating to the businesses of the partners including the assessee firm. The books and other accounts were stated to be in the custody of the Local Commissioner appointed by the Court. 2.2. Since, the assessee had failed to produce the requisite books of accounts and other relevant documents supporting the return, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order on 28.02.2003 under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs were liable to be set aside. This Court was of the view that the CIT had not examined the petitioner's contention with regard to non-service of notice and, accordingly, by order dated 06.05.2013, remanded the matter to CIT to examine the contentions of the assessee and decide the revision petition afresh. 2.6. Pursuant to the order dated 06.05.2013 passed by this Court, the CIT passed the impugned order dated 02.12.2013. The present writ petition, inter alia, challenges the said order. 3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act, a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act calling upon the assessee to produce evidence in support of its claim could not be served after expiry of one year from the end of the month in which the return had been furnished. Since, in the present case, the assessee had filed its return on 31.10.2000 the last date for serving the notice would be 31.10.2001. It was asserted that the assessee had not received any notice within the specified period and, therefore, the assessment proceedings were without jurisdiction. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee referred to Section 292BB of the Act and ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the Assessing Officer, information of which were communicated through those notices. It must, therefore, be presumed that the notice dispatched on 30.10.2001 was also correctly addressed. The fact that the speed post receipts mentioned New Delhi, in our view, would not be determinative of question whether the notice in question was correctly addressed. In this view, it must be presumed that the assessee had duly received the notice in question. 9. More importantly, the assessee had not disputed the service of notice at the relevant stage. The Assessing Officer, on 27.02.2002, issued another notice including a questionnaire. Apparently, the said notice also referred to the issuance of notice on 30.10.2001 and noted that the same had been duly received by the assessee on 31.10.2001. Thereafter, further notices were served by the Assessing Officer which were duly received or returned on account of the assessee refusing to accept the same. On 27.12.2002, the Assessing Officer issued yet another notice/questionnaire which also referred to the earlier notices under Section 143(2) of the Act. Concededly, this notice/questionnaire was received by the assessee who sought an adjournment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stinction between precluding a person who has not raised the plea of non-receipt of notice during the assessment proceedings, from subsequently raising such plea, and a case where the assessee has not controverted a statement during the assessment proceedings that it had duly received the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. In the latter case, where an assessee does not controvert an affirmative statement that it had duly received the notice on a particular date, the assessee would be precluded from controverting the same at a later stage and it would not be erroneous to hold that, as a matter of fact, the assessee had duly received the notice of the proceedings. Thus in the present case, the conclusion of the CIT that the assessee had duly received the notice in question on 31.10.2001 cannot be faulted. Although, it is the Revenue's view - as articulated in Circular No. 1 of 2009 dated 27.03.2009- that Section 292BB of the Act would be applicable to all pending proceedings as on 01.04.2008. In view of our aforesaid opinion, it is not necessary to examine the correctness of this view. 13. The contention that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer in the name of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under their control but in control of a Local Commissioner appointed by this Court in a civil suit instituted on its Original side. It was submitted that the possession of the premises in which the Books of Accounts and other material had been kept was taken over by Standard Chartered Bank and subsequently, handed over to the purchaser of the said property. The petitioners have, thus, submitted that they were not in control of the Books of Accounts and records of the assessee firm. In our view, this contention cannot be accepted, because it was always open for the assessee and/or its partners to approach this Court and seek an inspection of the records even if the same were in possession of the Local Commissioner. There is nothing on record to indicate that any efforts were made to obtain either copies of Books of Accounts or other relevant records of the assessee. In absence of the material sought by the Assessing Officer, he had no alternative but to make a best judgment assessment. 16. The contention that the assessment is unreasonable or made mechanicaly by simply disallowing the losses and arbitrarily making additions, is also without merit. One of the well accepted methods ....