TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2. In the instant case, at the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 59 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee claimed that the Assessee checked the income-tax portal on 11/03/2020 and came to know about the order dated 15/11/2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner. The tax consultant missed to check the income-tax portal due to time barring assessment proceedings under the Act and various other compliances pertaining to GST and therefore the delay has been occurred in filling of appeal. However the Assessee filed the appeal on 13th March, 2020 itself, but with an application for condonation of delay. The delay in filing the appeal was purely on account of oversight and neither there was any mali....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said shares as penny stock as ingenuine and manipulated and ultimately, treated the sale price of the said share amounting to Rs. 1,01,69,601/- as un-explained cash credit and added the same in the income of the Assessee. 4. The Ld. Commissioner on appeal, affirmed the said addition against which the Assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee before us mainly challenged the assessment order on the legal aspect. The Assessee claimed that though the Assessing Officer in first para of the assessment order has duly recorded that the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS, accordingly, the statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and duly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, for completing the assessment order and consequently assessment order itself is liable to be set aside. 5.2 On the contrary the Ld. refuted the claim of the Assessee and supported the orders passed by the authorities below. 6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions of the parties. The Assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal, which are legal in nature and emanates from the material available on record and therefore the same are admitted for adjudication in view of judgment of Apex Court in NTPC Ltd. Vs CIT {229 ITR 383}:- "4. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in holding that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served on the Appellant by way of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cified in Order V Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') which reads a under: " Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, The order for serving the notice/summon through affixture can be passed by the Court/Competent Authority and noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng notices under the Act, a report is to be drawn up by the Serving Officer/Inspector, on the facts and circumstances of the service by affixture, specifying the date and time of service and the name of the identifier, if any who identified the premises and witnessesed the affixing of notice and in the absence of identifier, mention the efforts made to find out any identifier. The Serving Officer/Inspector can prove the service by solemnly affirming the facts and particulars of service as reported and by producing the documents such as photos etc.. The report is to be filed as an endorsement to the original notice after being docketed in the order sheet. The report should be verified by an affidavit. In the absence of such an affidavit, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The notice under section 143(2) is mandatory. Admittedly, the Revenue department failed to produce / prove the sending of the notice through ordinary post or through RPAD, etc. and also failed to bring on record any order passed for substituted service by affixing the notice and even otherwise the report of the Inspector on the basis of which the Revenue department is claiming that notice has been served through affixture, in fact, shrouded with many doubts, as in the report it is nowhere mentioned: • Under what circumstances the notice was affixed and • When the notice was affixed and also • Not mentioned the name and address of the person(s) (if any) by whom the house was identified and/or tried to ....