TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the due procedure as laid down under the law. 1(b) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. (a)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 46,96,422/- (Correct figure is Rs. 43,96,422/-) on account of 'other expenses' and further erred in rejecting the additional evidences filed by the assessee and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 2 (b)That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 46,96,422/- (Correct figure is Rs. 43,96,422/-) on account of 'other expenses', is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. (a)That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 78,89,482/- u/s 36(l)(i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 3,20,00,000/- in equity shares of Pvt. Ltd. Company. On failure of the assessee to file details, AO proceeded to invoke provision contained u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D and thereby made disallowance of Rs. 1,65,000/-. AO also made disallowance of Rs. 43,96,422/- on account of disallowance of other expenses claimed by the assessee. AO also made disallowance of Rs. 78,89,482/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act on account of disallowance of interest and thereby assessed the total income at Rs. 2,01,87,910/-. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) who has partly allowed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved assessee company has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. At the very outset, the Ld. AR for the assessee contended that first of all, assessee challenges the validity of the assessment order on the ground that notice u/s 143(2) has never been served upon the assessee company in time, which objection was also raised during assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntioned in notice dated 29.09.2014 notice in the ordinary process was required to be issue first. It is proved from the material available on record that the address of the assessee company was never of "Shalimar Bagh" rather all the assessments of preceding years were completed at the address of CR Park on which notice by way of substitute service was issued. When we examine letter dated 20th January, 2016 available at page 94, assessee has specifically brought to the notice of Assessing Officer that notice u/s 142(1) was received for the first time on 16.10.2015 and has also submitted before AO that notices u/s 142(1) / 143(2) are time barred having been received by the assessee after 30.09.2014. 11. No doubt, Assessing Officer has disposed of the objection filed by the assessee by passing a separate order dated 03.02.2016 available at page 95 to 99 of the paper book, but when statutory requirements as to service of notice u/s 143(2) has not been completed, merely disposing of the objection does not make the assessment valid, which was otherwise invalid since very beginning. 12. Bare perusal of notice issued u/s 143(2) dated 04.09.2014 and another notice issued by way of affix....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances it is difficult to comprehend as to how the address of assessee mentioned on notice u/s 143(2) dated 04.09.2014 of Shalimar Bagh has entered into the record. On the one hand, the revenue has claimed that the first notice dated 04.09.2014 was deemed served then it is beyond comprehension as to what was the need for issuance of 2nd notice dated 29.09.2014 to served by way of affixation. So the entire exercise goes to prove that notice u/s 143(2) has never been served upon the assessee on or before 03.09.2014. 16. Moreover, when we advert to the procedure laid down in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 notice by way of affixation can only be issued only when notice issued in the ordinary course could not be served despite reasonable effort and the Assessing Officer was satisfied enough to reach the conclusion that service in the ordinary course cannot be effected in the ordinary course. More over there is no material on the file showing any order passed by Revenue Officer reaching the conclusion that the service in this case cannot be effected in the ordinary course and as such he has resorted to get the service of assessee effected through substitute service. 17. Furthermor....