AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 1256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Addl. CIT, Range-27, New Delhi requiring the assessee to file return of income for A.Y. 2003-04. However, assessee failed to make any compliance to this notice and no return was filed. Thereafter, the AO had issued notices u/s 142(1) on 09.06.2010, 06.08.2010 and 14.09.2010. At this juncture it is pertinent to point out that assesse's claim is that it had received first notice on 14.09.2010. The assessee filed a letter dated 22nd September, 2010 enclosing the acknowledgement of saral form and further stated that the assessee was not holding the relevant record for this assessment year and also stated that initiation of the proceedings after lapse of six years were unjustified. 3. The Assessing Officer has observed as under: "T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....166 ITR 163 (SC)." 3.1 The AO finally made an addition of Rs. 6,15,000/-, inter-alia, observing that assessee had no explanation to offer. 4. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee had assailed the initiation of proceedings under section 148 and the consequent framing of the assessment order. It was submitted that she received the first notice dated 14th September, 2010 which she replied by filing the written submissions through letter dated 22nd September, 2010. The AO, however, informed the assessee that notice u/s 148 was issued on 30th March, 2010 which was well within the period of six years as stipulated by law. 4.1 After considering the assessee's submissions, ld. CIT(A) observed in para 4.2 as under: 4.2 "I have carefully ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a different address i.e. BK22, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi - 110062. Thus, it is clear that notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO on 30.03.2010, i.e. within the stipulated time frame prescribed by law and it had been correctly addressed to the appellant as per the address given by her in PAN details. The notice was duly dispatched through speed post. After careful consideration of all the facts, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the issue of notice and its service and that the argument taken by the appellant is devoid of all merit. My opinion gathers strength from the fact that there are letters on record, written by the ld. AR of the appellant dt. 30.11.2010, 21.12.2010 and 24.12.2010 which clearly indicate that the appellant was we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the appellant. Thus, technically, the appellant can be treated as "served" with the notice u/s 148 since, t he proceedings of assessment were still pending. Under these circumstances, I hold that the reopening of assessment was valid and the notice u/s 148 was validly served on the appellant. The technical objection taken by the ld. AR is therefore, rejected and dismissed." Therefore, he rejected the assessee's contentions. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to page 1 of assessment order to demonstrate that first notice received by assessee was dated 14th September, 2010 for 22nd September, 2010. He pointed out that the notices dated 9th June, 2010 and 6th August, 2010 were not received by assessee and, therefore, no complianc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, 2010. Ld. Counsel further referred to copy of return for A.Y. 2010-11 filed on 24th January, 2011 and A.Y. 2011-12 filed on 29th September, 2011, wherein the address of assessee was given as Flat No. 124, Plot No. 33, Princess Park Apartment. Ld. Counsel further referred to page 9 of paper book, wherein the copy of form no. 18 is contained to demonstrate that w.e.f. 26th April, 2004 the office of S.R. Foils Ltd. had changed from BE-63, Hari Nagar, New Delhi to 2nd Floor, Vardhana Plaza, J Block, Community Centre, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. He, therefore, submitted that AO had issued notice at wrong address. Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Eshaan Holding (P) Ltd., [2012] 344 ITR 541 (Del.). 5.....