TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idity of the Assessment Order though the same was passed in pursuance of an unsigned thus invalid notice u/s. 142(1). 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law in coming to the conclusion that not serving a signed and valid notice u/s. 142 (1) is only a technical/procedural defect/omission and hence the same would not invalidate the assessment proceedings in view of the provisions of Sec. 292B. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law in coming to the conclusion that service of an unsigned assessment order is only an inadvertent mistake and the same being only a technical or venial defect would not make the assessment invalid in view of the provisions of Sec. 29213. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) err....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) noted that the assessee had shown sundry creditors of Rs. 1,29,15,933 as on 31/3/2007. The assessee was asked to furnish the details and confirmations of all the sundry creditors. The assessee submitted the confirmation of some of the sundry creditors and could not furnish the confirmations/details of remaining creditors totaling to Rs. 94,94,157/.- The AO, therefore, in the absence of material evidence, assumed that the liability of the assessee to the extent of 20% of the above amount has ceased to exist and accordingly he added 20% of Rs. 94,94,157/-, which was worked out at Rs. 18,98,831/-, into the income of the assessee. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was contended that the sum of Rs. 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was also stated that the assessee had not made any payment, whatsoever, from FY 2000-01 till date to above two parties. The assessee could not furnish any correspondence/evidence etc. to suggest that the said parties had ever demanded the money from the assessee in the last 10 years. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) also made further enquiries through the AO u/s 250(4). The ITI deputed by the AO in his report dated 29/4/2011 forwarded by ITO ward 21(1)(1) vide his letter dated 2/5/2011 has stated that he visited the last known business addresses of both the persons as mentioned in the bills/PAN data but these persons were not found existing on these addresses. Enquiries from the present occupants of the given addresses could not reveal any other addres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of the assessee had not been scrutinized u/s 143(3) ever in the past and hence it could not be said that the liability had been accepted by the AO in earlier years. In view of the above factual position, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that there was no evidence to show that the liability of the assessee was still existent. He therefore held that once the liability of Rs. 94,94,157/- was found to be ceased or nonexistent, then it was the total amount of liability of Rs. 94,94,157/- being shown in the name of two parties which was required to be added u/s 41(1) and not to the extent of only 20% of the said amount, as done by the AO in the assessment order. He, after giving the opportunity to the assessee to explain in this respect, added th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability has ceased to exist, but he himself made further enquiries to find out the alleged creditors through the official machinery. When he had satisfied himself that neither in the last so many years those parties had ever been seen by anybody, nor any known address of them was available, there was never any demand of payment by any of the above named parties from the assessee for the last more than 10 years, no income tax returns had been filed by them, only then he concluded that the liability of the assessee, in fact, had ceased to exist. In our view, merely because the assessee now has offered the said amount as income, that itself, does not support the case of the assessee that the liability had not ceased to exist in the year under ....