2016 (8) TMI 652

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f facts are, the assessee an individual filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on September 29, 2008, declaring total income of Rs. 17,57,650. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has claimed deduction on account of interest expenditure amounting to Rs. 4,95,495, called upon the assessee to establish the nexus between the expenditure incurred and income derived from the business. Alleging that the assessee failed to prove the nexus, he disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 4,95,495 and added back to the income of the assessee. On the basis of the addition made in the assessment order the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the assessee is an unsigned one, hence, the order is invalid. The learned authorised representative submitted, after receipt of the penalty order when the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the office of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the assessee to furnish a copy of penalty order signed by the Assessing Officer. The learned authorised representative submitted, after such direction of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) though the assessee made repeated requests in writing before the Assessing Officer to supply him a signed copy of the penalty order but all his requests fell in deaf ear. In support of such contention, the learned authorised representative drew our attention to the letters d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the order. The assessee has also filed an affidavit clearly and categorically stating therein that the unsigned penalty order is the only order received by him from the Assessing Officer. The claim of the assessee appears to be correct considering the fact that the assessee on more than one occasion has requested the Assessing Officer to supply a signed copy of the penalty order. This fact has also been brought to the notice of the first appellate authority during the pendency of the assessee's appeal. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed/rejected the plea of the assessee in a mechanical and routine manner by accepting the version of the Assessing Officer that a signed copy of the penalty order is available in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot give any importance to the service of notice of demand duly signed but emphasised the requirement of the law that an order of assessment had to be signed for its validity. The Revenue authorities have, in the present case, proceeded on the footing that the requirement of law is complied with when a signed notice of demand exists or is served on an asses see. In our view, the question in the case before the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyankumar Ray v. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 634 (SC) was the absence of a tax calculation in the order of assessment. The order of assessment duly signed existed. The present case is a case where there was no signed order of assessment. We are of the view that the decision in the case of Smt. Kilasho ....