TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- on account of Investment in M/s Unitech Limited, Signature Tower, South City, Gurgaon. The learned A.O. as well as CIT(A) has not looked into the documentary evidence filed by the assesse during the course of proceedings. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the enhancement of profit shown at Rs. 1,58,879/- to Rs. 10,25,000/- on estimated basis on sales of Rs. 1,28,14,983/- by taking the rate of profit @ 8% of the sales. The learned A.O. had made the addition at the rate of 10% of the sales of Rs. 1,28,14,983/-. The addition made on estimated basis is highly unjustified and rejection of books of account without finding any discrepancy in purchase or sales, was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....143(2)/142(1) from time to time. But, according to A.O, the assessee has avoided all the notices and did not file any reply. The A.O. ultimately, computed the income of assessee at Rs. 28,99,990 by making the additions of Rs. 11,22,619, Rs. 8 lakhs and Rs. 8,18,495. The appeal of assessee was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that as per proviso to Section 143(2) relevant to the assessment year under appeal, no notice under this clause shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished. He has submitted that since return was filed on 30th September, 2011, therefore, notice under section 143(2) would be served ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. filed the copies of the notice under section 143(2) dated 07th September, 2012 along with address of the assessee as per data base and return filed along with copies of the order sheet. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Madhsy Films (P.) Ltd., (2008) 301 ITR 69 (Del.) and CIT vs. Yamu Industries Ltd., (2008) 306 ITR 309 (Del.) in which it was held that where notice issued to the assessee under section 143(2) had been dispatched by Speed Post at the address given in the return and same had not been returned back, it would be presumed that it had reached the assessee and duly served upon the assessee within the period of limitation. The Ld. D.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....received back unserved. No order sheet for 18th September, 2012 on which date the compliance is to be made by the assessee has been recorded by the A.O. Copy of the order sheet filed on record suggests that after 07th September, 2012, A.O. did not record any order sheet on 18th September, 2012. The A.O. thereafter, recorded order sheet on 24th September, 2012 and on that date A.O. issued notice under section 143(2) to the assessee at the another address of assessee at Sohna Road, Gurgaon and fixed the case for compliance on 28th September, 2013. Thereafter, no order sheet on 28th September, 2013 have been recorded. Thereafter, A.O. straightaway recorded the order sheet on 26th August, 2013 issuing notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) for ....