TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1033
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and merits of this appeal are narrated and submitted in the following grounds of appeal. 2. That in this case the appellant originally had filed appeal against the order of the Ld. A.O. dated 23.12.2011 before the Ld. CIT(A), assailing on the following two issues besides other grounds of appeal. a. That the notice u/s 143(2) mentioned in the assessment order as that" notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 23.03.2010 was issued to the assessee" was never served or received by them. b. That the Ld. A.O. erred in making an addition of Rs. 19,90,949/- u/s 69 of the I.T.Act as alleged unexplained purchases made by the assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) vide his order bearing Appeal no- 365/11-12 dated 31.03.2013 held as mentioned below. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the issue of non service of notice u/s 143(2). 10. That while rejecting the claim of the assessee of non service of notice u/s 143(2) the submissions of the appellant were not appreciated in a correct perspective. 11. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in not considering the claim of non service of notice u/s 143(2) particularly in the context of the following observations of the Ld. A.O. in his assessment order. "Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 23.03.2010 was issued to the assessee" 2. This is second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, this Tribunal was pleased to restore the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) regarding nonservice of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). However,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ble Delhi High Court in S K Srivastava Vs CBDT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 65 (Delhi) held that where petitioner challenged notice under section 148 on ground that same was not served within prescribed time, however it was found that address at which reopening notice was petitioner on his tax portal and was also reflected as communication address in his PAN and furthermore digitally signed notice was also uploaded on e-filing portal of petitioner within limitation period, impugned notice could not be said to be issued beyond limitation. Hon'ble Supreme Court decision dated 13.08.2019 in CIT Vs Laxman Das Khandelwal C.A. NO.2019 SLP[C] Diary No.7708 of 2019', "Para 9' clearly says that "According to Section 292BB of the Act, if....