TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 661
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt order was served by Regd. Post on 31.12.2009 and appellant never refused to accept as there was no business at that time as it was closed in 2008. As such there was no possibility to refuse. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) without affording a reasonable opportunity have treated the appeal out of limitation and as such had not decided the other ground of appeal on merit which is illegal, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay and to hear the appeal on merits. 3. Firstly, I will decide Ground Nos. 2 to 4 of the appeal which relate to issue of limitation. For the assessment year 2007-08, the assessee filed his return of income on 29/03/2008 declaring total income at Rs. 2,31,040/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act(in short 'the Act') on 25/03/2009. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 29/03/2008, which was send by post. AO also issued notice under section 142(1) on 29/09/2009 fixing the case for hearing on 08/10/2009. In response to the above notice, Sh. S.C.Satija, Advocate the Ld. Representative of the assessee attended the proceedings on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice of notice of demand. Regarding the service of assessment order, the A.O. in his letter no. 60 dated 20.09.2013 submitted that "Kindly refer to your office letter no. 354 dated 19.09.2013 on the captioned subject. In this regard, it is submitted that as per record of this office, assessment order along with demand notice / penalties notices were sent by registered post on 31.12.2009 (Photo copy of receipt from Postal Authorities enclosed). The registered letter was received back with remarks from the Postal Authorities "refused to receive". The photocopy of envelop is also enclosed herewith for ready reference." 4.2 I have considered the submissions made, it is amply proved that the demand notice / penalty notices etc. has been duly served on the appellant by registered post on 31.12.2009. In view of this, I find no reason for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal almost after one & half years." 6. The only issue in this appeal is as to whether there was a sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). As per the CIT(A) there was a delay of 554 days in filing the appeal against the order dt. 24/12/2009, passed by the AO for the Assessment Year 2007....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section 144 at any time after the expiry of - (a) two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable; or b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section (4) or sub-section(5) of section 138, Whichever is later : Provided that in case the assessment year in which the income was first assessable is the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2004 but before the 1st day of April, 2010, the provisions of clause(a) shall have effect as if for the words "two years", the words "twenty-one months" had been substituted: 8. The Ld. DR submitted that for the assessment year 2007-08 time limit for completion of assessment under section 143 or section 144 was 31/12/2009. As per the above provision of law the AO was bound to complete the assessment on or before 31/12/2009. Ld. DR submitted that the assessee who was being advised and represented by his counsel Sh. S.C. Satija, Advocate was well aware of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no merit in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that address given in the return of income is different than the address mentioned in the registered letter which is served on the assessee on 31/12/2009. In the return of income assessee has not mentioned the words " Proprietor M/s Mohinder Oil Carriers". In my opinion it cannot be said that the AO has sent the assessment order dt. 24/12/2009 on wrong address. It is observed that the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) on 08/08/2011 against the order of AO, (ITO, Ward-1 Mandi Gobindgarh). In Form No. 35 the assessee himself has given the address as under: "Sh. Mohinder Singh Dhindsa Prop. M/s Mohinder Oil Carriers Ambe Majra Near Sant Pritam Singh Public School Mandi Gobindgarh" Thus the address mentioned in the registered post and Form No. 35 is the same, and therefore the assessee cannot take this plea that the address mentioned in the registered post is wrong or the registered letter was sent on wrong address. Even in Form No. 36 (Form of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal), the assessee has mentioned his address as under: Sh. Mohinder Singh Dhindsa Prop. M/s Mohinder Oil Carriers, Ambe Majra,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notices and refund vouchers to sign and file statements as intimated by me/us and obtain copies of documents and orders, give explanation and generally to do all other lawful acts and matters in connection with my/our Income Tax/Sales Tax, Wealth Tax/Gift Tax assessment, appeal and revision for the assessment year 2007-08. To employ any other practitioner authorized him to exercise the power and authorities hereby, conferred on the said counsel, whenever he may think fit to do so. I/We shall be personally responsible for all the accounts signed & delivered through him/them statement or declaration made before the authorities concerned. Accepted...... Sd/- (H.R. Saldi) Advocate Sd/- (Mohinder Singh) Director / Partner / Karta /Prop. Sd/- Rajiv Saldi F.C.A Dated......................... 13. It appears that for the first time the assessee has taken the plea that address mentioned on registered post is wrong or that the letter was sent on wrong address and there was no business at that time as it was closed in 2008. As regards the Plea that there was no business as it was closed in 2008, I do not find an iota of evidence in support of this contention. Even oth....