TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lled "The Act") for Assessment Year 2008-09. Addition to the tune of Rs. 1,14,00,000/- u/s 68 and Rs. 4,49,316/- on account of expenditure disallowed on exempted income upon application of Rule 8D have been challenged before us. However, before arguing the matter on merit, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee raised preliminary objection in regard to the serving of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 31.08.2009 while initiating the assessment proceedings. The assessee company filed its return of income on 30.09.2008. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee that the impugned assessment order u/s 143(2) of the Act was claimed to have been passed after due process of the law by serving notice in due time in terms ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment proceedings was also obtained from ACIT-5(1), Indore who issued the alleged first notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act. It appears that the said revenue officer himself admitted that said first notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not served on time before 30.09.2009, as it reflects at page 54 being the memo dated 30.09.2010 under the signature of ACIT-5(1), Indore written to the appellant company. It was further contended by the said Revenue Officer that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for the assessment proceedings for the relevant Assessment Year was sent by speed post on 03.09.2010 vide dispatch No.1221/03.09.2009 as well as through notice server by the Office of the Ld. ACIT-5(1), Indore and claimed to have been duly served upon ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fice server the acknowledgement whereof speak about the details of the person receiving the same. In fact the notice server Shri Prem N Joshi failed to prove on record the Name/designation/identification of the person to whom the same was delivered. It was contended by the appellant that the signature of the impugned notice does not belong to any of the officer/Director or employee of the company. It is relevant to note that this fact has not been controverted by the revenue. No such evidence indicating receiving notice genuinely on behalf of the assessee is forthcoming from the revenue in order to substantiate that the service has actually been affected. The Ld. DR has not been able to satisfy us on this aspect. In that event we do not hes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was claimed that the said notice was served on Shri Murli Dhar Vaish" - no such claim made by the Department that it was served on certain specific person. Later the server Inspector did not state any specific person on whom he made the delivery. It was further observed that personal service would not be a valid service of notice, if it has not been made either on the person mentioned there or an agent duly authorised to receive notice as provided under Section 282 of the Act. Finally, since there have been no entry in the order sheet regarding the issuance and service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the contention of the assessee that no such service was ever issued what is to say of service of the same on the assessee or on his authorise....