2015 (11) TMI 1054

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... grounds, however, learned counsel for the assessee has pressed ground Nos. (a) and (b) for adjudication, which are as under : "(a) For that the orders of the forums below are illegal, unjust and excessive in the facts of the case and liable to be quashed. (b) For that non-service of notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) is highly illegal and the alleged service by the respondent purported to have been made on one Pinaki Prasad Swain is neither known related to the appellant nor was authorised and even chance of cross- examination not made to find out the veracity and genuineness of proper service of notices if any made at all and non-service of stat utory notice shall entail the violation of the provisions of the statute and proce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sponse to notice dated September 27, 2010". This clearly establishes that whether or not the original service of the notice was on the proper person became irrelevant, because eventually the notice had reached the appellant and the appellant had responded to the notice by appearing before, the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, notings on the order sheet of the Assessing Officer dated September 5, 2011, September 13, 2011, September 22, 2011, October 13, 2011 and October 21, 2011 substantially prove that the authorised representative of the appellant had appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and sufficient oppor tunities had been given to the appellant to explain his case. In view of the above, I am not inclined to accept....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s served on one Mr. A. Singh who was neither the agent of the assessee-firm duly authorised to receive the said notice on its behalf nor even its employee. The said person to whom the notice in question was claimed to be served and who had even acknowledged receipt of the same, was neither identified by the notice server nor delivering or tendering of the said notice to him was witnessed as required by rule 18 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as before us, the plea raised on behalf of the assessee-firm has been that the said notice was not received by it as claimed by the Revenue and it was, therefore, incumbent upon the Department to place on record the relevant mate....