TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als and crossobjections involve common issues, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 775/Ahd/2013-Revenue's Appeal for AY 2006-07 2. Ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal reads as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the order passed by ld. AO is invalid as the notice under section143(2) has not been issued before passing assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are that for the year under consideration the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 142(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 19.06.2012. The CIT(A) quashed the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice u/s. 142(1) dated 30.06.2011- Hearing - 13.07.11- Received 09.07.11 Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 04.11.2011- Hearing 14.11.2011 Notice u/s. 142(1) dtd 17.11.2011- Hearing-25.11.2011-Received - 18.11.11 142(2A) approved by CIT, Valsad for Asstt. Years 2006-07 to 09-10 on 20.12.2011 received on 23.12.2011. Order u/s.120(5) received by the ACIT- 12.06.2012- Hearing fixed 18.06.12 Submission filed by the assessee - 18.06.12 Draft order sent for approval of the JCIT, Vapi-18.06.12 Order passed by the ACIT, Vapi u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 19.06.12." 4. From the above, it is evident that the CIT(A) himself has verified the assessment record and date-wise tabulated the issuance and service of notice upon the assessee. He also re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer never confirmed that notices u/s 143(2) in the above case have not been issued. He, further submitted the copy of notice u/s 143(2) dated 18.11.2011, the report of the notice server dated 18.11.2011 and panchanama dated 23.11.2011 with regard to service of notice by affixture. He, therefore, submitted that since the notice u/s 143(2) was duly served, the CIT(A) was not justified in quashing the assessment order. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the CIT(A) on this point should be reversed and assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s 143(2A) should be held to be valid. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, referred to the assessment order and he stated that in the assessment order the Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal Representative, on 18.11.2011 the assessee's premises was closed and therefore, notice was served through affixture. He stated that when the notice u/s 142(1) can be served on 18.11.2011, then obviously the claim of the Revenue, that for the purpose of service of notice u/s 143(2) the premises was closed, is false. He also stated that the substituted service of notice, i.e., the service by affixture can be resorted to only if the other normal mode of service fails. He referred to chronological events of issue of service of notice noted by the CIT(A) and pointed out that always in the original hearing as well as in the set aside hearing, all the notices issued were duly served upon the assessee's premises. Then, how come only for the pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of the original return of income and all notices issued during the original assessment proceeding, during the assessment of fringe benefit and during the re-assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) has prepared this chart himself, after verification of the case record carefully. Thus, at the relevant time, on the assessment records, there was no copy of the notice u/s 143(2) and no evidence of affixture of any such notice upon the assessee. From the finding of the CIT(A) in paragraph 7.2 in page 17, it is evident that he confronted these facts to the Assessing Officer who must have appeared before him in person in response to which the Assessing Officer admitted about non-service of notice. Therefore, till the date of the order of the CIT(A) or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is evident that one notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 17.11.2011 which was duly served upon the assessee on 18.11.2011. When the notice u/s 142(1) can be served upon the assessee on 18.11.2011 through notice server, how the premises of the assessee is claimed to be closed for the service of notice u/s 143(2). From the chronology of date-wise events, we find that several notices and orders were issued from time to time and each and every notice/order have been duly served at the same premises. From the totality of these facts, we only say that the purported notice dated 18.11.2011 (photocopy of same is placed before us and claimed its service through affixture) lacks credence and cannot be relied upon. There is no contemporious evidence in ....