TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted him to file requisite details before the AO. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding the initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 as void ab initio as the notice u/s. 148 was not served upon the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding under the circumstances, the action of the AO of making best judgment assessment u/s. 144, in respect of which no material was gathered by the AO is not sustainable. 4. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 18.10.2004, which was processed u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated 26.3.2014 has statistically allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. In this case the Notice was sent to the Assessee for hearing by Regd. AD Post for today i.e. 08.07.2015 at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 vide Column No. 10, but nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application was filed. In my considered opinion, no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again on the same address. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the case may be decided exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR. 7. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, and if on verification, the AO finds that no income can be held to have escaped in the hands of the assessee, no addition in respect of such information can be made to the appellant's income. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the issue of notice u/s 148 was good in law and the AO has followed the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (2003) 259 ITR 19 by making note of satisfaction on cogent grounds before issuing the notice u/s 148. 5 8.1 I also find that there is no dispute that notice u/s 148 and any other notices issued subsequently by the AO, could not have been served upon the assessee as all of them were sent at an address, which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 55, Royal Palace, 1st Floor, Vikas Marg, Delhi, which was the address originally given to the bankers, which was obtained by the AO. However, in the return of income, the assessee had given correct address, at which other notices were served in the past. The assessee had given the copy of summon u/s 131 issued to the Director of the assessee company, Sh. Pankaj Garg on 21.8.2007, which was issued and served at the given address at C-441, Gali No. 5, Ashok Nagar, Shahdra. The penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2001-02 were also concluded by issue of notice at the same address, i.e. C-441, Gali No. 5, Ashok Nagar, Shahdra and the appellate proceeding for AY 2002-03, which were concluded on 21.06.2005 also reflects the assessees's ....