TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he amount of Rs. 7,76,051/- received by the appellant as part of salary and confirming the addition ignoring that the same to be capital receipt as claimed by the appellant. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding AO's act of holding the view that the amount received as compensation for loss of employment in pursuance of a court order tantamount to part of salary, particularly when there is no relationship of employer and employee for the relevant period for which the compensation/pecuniary benefits were received by the appellant and particularly when the appellant was reappointed with 50% of the pecuniary benefits. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding AO's action that the provisions of section 15 to 17 of the Income tax Act are applicable to the amount of Rs. 7,76,051/- received by the appellant and also that the amount received by the appellant is not the capital receipt for the cessation of source of income. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts that no interest u/s. 234A was leviable as the return of income was filed within the due date. 7. All the above grounds are without prejudice to each other and are subject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der, statutory notice u/s. 143(2)(i) was issued dt. 30.5.2003. The assessee had filed the ITR on 25.07.2002. As per the provisions of s. 143(2)(i) then in force, this notice should have been served on the assessee on or before 31.5.2003. The notice was not received by the assessee but at her residence by her maid on 1st June, 2003, The relevant extract of s. 143(2)(i) is reproduced as under: "[(2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, the Assessing Officer shall,- (i) where he has reason to believe that any claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying particulars of such claim of loss, exemption, deduction, allowance or relief and require him, on a date to be specified therein to produce, or case to be produced, any evidence or particulars specified therein or on which the assessee may rely, in support of such claim: [Provided that no notice under this clause shall he served on the assessee on or after the 1st day of June, 2003:]" The proviso to above section has curtailed the li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n to restrict the scope and meaning of the expression 'so far as may be apply'- Further, s. 158BH provides for application of the other provisions of the Act which specifically includes s. 142 and sub ss.(2) and (3) of s. 143." b. Anil Kisanlal Marda Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) XTA No. 1763/PUN/2013 dtd, 01/07/2019 "Since no effort was made by AO to serve another notice u/s. 143(2) before the deadline after returning from postal authorities the original notice u/s. 143(2) thus, the jurisdictional condition of 'service' of notice u/s. 143(2) and not its 'issue' was not satisfied and accordingly, assessment order passed in absence of a valid jurisdiction was quashed." In view of above facts and circumstances, the above ground of this appellant may please be allowed." 7. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee dismissed this ground by observing as under:- "2. The appellant has contended that the notice u/s. 143(2) was not served validly. First objection of the appellant is that the notice was served on 01-June-2003 whereas the last date of service of the notice u/s. 143(2) for the purpose of limited scrutin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Supreme Court in the case of ACIT & Another Vs. Hotel Blue Moon reported at 321 ITR 362(SC). 10. In his rival submissions, the Ld. DR reiterated the observations made by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order and strongly supported the said order. 11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the limitation period for serving notice u/s. 143(2) (i) of the Act was up to 31.5.2003 and the Assessing officer issued the notice on 30.5.2003. It was claimed by the Assessing officer that the said notice was served on the same date i.e. 30.5.2003. On the contrary, the claim of the assessee is that the said notice was never served upon the assessee and it was received by his maid who was not authorized to receive the same on Ist June, 2003. In the present case, it is noticed that the assessee also moved an application under R.T.I. Act to the Assessing officer i.e. I.T.O., Ward 1(3) of the Income Tax Department, Chandigarh on 18.8.2021 (copy of which is placed at page 5 of the assessee's compilation), which reads as under:- "Speed -post 18.08.2021 Incom....