TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 1244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Income-tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar under section 144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') qua the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 on the grounds inter alia that :- AY 1996-97 "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred:- i) in confirming the jurisdiction of the Asstt. CIT Circle Noida over the assessee company and up holding his order passed u/s 144/147, when the jurisdiction over the appellant lied in Delhi, being a company having Registered Office in Delhi , Registered with ROC Delhi and Haryana , being controlled by the Directors from Delhi and also filing its return in Delhi, thus making his order illegal and bad in law. ii) in estimating the business income at Rs. 3,71....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iated proceedings under section 147 of the Act by issuance of the notice dated 27.03.2003 u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee by registered post and subsequently by affixture. On failure of the assessee to file any return, AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by perusing the balance sheet and profit & loss account for different assessment year. In AY 1996-97, AO made addition of Rs. 3,71,250/- being the profit @ 15% of the balance gold on account of business income as the assessee has made sale to the extent of Rs. 4,50,000/- only as against the purchase of gold to the tune of Rs. 24,75,000/-. Assessee has also purchased a Ceilo Car No.UP14C-3207 through its MD, Shri Deepak Gupta but failed to furnish the sources of its investment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....improper as no evidence has been led by the Assessing Officer to establish that assessee had ever refused the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act." 6. Tribunal, vide order dated 18.02.2014 passed in both the aforesaid appeals, allowed application moved by the assessee to raise the additional grounds. 7. From the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments addressed by the ld. Representatives of the parties, perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and case law relied upon, the sole question arises for determination in this case is :- "as to whether no notice u/s 148 has ever been served upon the assessee necessary to proceed u/s 147/148 of the Act as contended by the assessee?" 8. Undisputedly, the opening lines of the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee i.e. (i) Plot No.167, NEPZ, Noida (Received back with postal remark "Closed" dated 28.03.2003), (ii) 6/133, Sector-2, Rajendra Nagar, Sahibabad Ghaziabad (Received back with postal remark "No such Firm or Company at this address, sent back dated 29.03.2003"), (iii) 6/111, Sector-2, Rajendra Nagar, Sahibabad Ghaziabad (Received back with postal remark "No such Firm or Company at this address, sent back dated 29.03.2003"), (iv) 6/110, Sector-2, Rajendra Nagar, Sahibabad Ghaziabad (Received back with postal remark "No such Firm or Company at this address, sent back dated 29.03.2003"). However, while the notices were in transit, the AO deputed two inspectors in anticipation on 27.03.2003 to serve the notices to the assessee on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeals by the AO apparently goes to prove that when notices u/s 148 were sent through speed post on the various known addresses of the assessee on 26.03.2003 then what was tearing hurry to issue the second notice dated 27.03.2003 to be served through two Inspectors of the Revenue without waiting for the outcome of the notices issued through speed post who have reported vide report dated 27.03.2003, that "after repeated calls no body opened the door and Chowkidar also refused to receive the notice and they are left with no option but to affix the notice on the main gate of the said premises." 11. First of all, bare perusal of the notice dated 27.03.2003 allegedly refused by Chowkidar of the assessee company as reported by Inspectors of....