TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the order of the Assessing Officer Ward 29(1) New Delhi. 2. That the learned CIT (A) has record, the cases cited and principles of natural justice. 3. That on facts and in the circumstances of the case & in law the learned CIT (A) failed to consider the ground of proper service of notice which is the foundation for valid jurisdiction & the case cited of Delhi High Court CIT VS Hotline International (P) Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 333 Delhi. 4. That on facts and in circumstances of the case & in law the learned CIT (A) erred by not allowed of Rs. 5,91,000/-(out of 91,000/-subject to verification)the claim of bad debts. 5. That the following observations of the learned CIT (A) in the order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer disallowed Rs. 21,447/- out of telephone expenses, Rs. 3,290/- out of business promotion expenses and Rs. 33,705/- out of user of vehicle on account of personal usage, out of the lumpsum amounts claimed by the assessee in P & L accounts. 3. The assessee also claimed bad debt of Rs. 5,91,000/- in computation of income for the year under consideration but in the Assessment Year 2005-06, no such bad debt had been claimed. In response to the queries, assessee stated that financial position of the party M/s. Amar Sales Corporation was week but failed to furnish any supporting evidence. Assessee, vide letter dated 17.12.2008 also claimed that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not served upon the assessee in time and at the correct add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by the Ld. A.R., relied upon the order of Ld. CIT(A). 8. Bare perusal of the provisions contained u/s 143(2) shows that it incorporates the rule of audi alteram partem i.e. no man should be condemned unheard. Notice u/s 143(2) implies mandatory duty of the Assessing Officer to get the notice served upon the assessee before proceeding for assessment. Now, adverting to the case at hand, assessment record was summoned and perused in the open court and the assessee has submitted a letter dated 25.04.2008 to the Assessing Officer categorically raising the question that the notice dated 16.04.2008 has never been served upon him and as such it is not possible to prepare the case. Perusal of the return ....