Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI J.S. REDDY & SHRI A.T. VARKEY
PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the CIT (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi dated 08.11.2010 and 12.11.2010 in 177/Del/2011 respectively for the assessment year 2006-07.
Ground No.1 of the assessee is regarding non-receipt of notices, especially notice u/s 143 (2) before 30.11.2007, which ground if sustained, according to assessee, the impugned assessment order u/s 144 by the AO will be barred by limitation and so it will be a nullity in the eyes of law.
2 & 177/Del./2011 3. Brief facts of the case are that the address mentioned by the AO in his order dated 03.12.2008 is A – 9, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi-110 049 and the AO in the absence of anyone representing from the part of assessee passed order u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The AO has stated that the first notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 09.10.2007 fixing the case on 24.10.2007. And from a perusal of the AO’s order, it reveals that he has sent notices dated 19.11.2007 to an address in Bangalore, thereafter on 02.04.2008 again to address in Bangalore and thereafter on 30.05.2008 to address at Gurgaon. However, the assessee’s plea is that it has not received the notices u/s 143 (2) of the Act. The short question is to which address the AO sent the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act before 30.11.2007; whether it was the address as furnished by the assessee in its return of income; whether the assessee had duly intimated the department of any change in address, if any, is not discernible from a perusal of the orders of both the authorities below.
We find that AO in the body of his order has noted the address as A – 9, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi-110 047; however, then why he sent the notice at the address at Bangalore or Gurgaon and from where did he get these addresses is not understood. Since the assessee has filed an affidavit stating that it has not received the notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act; and it is not emerging from the CIT (A)’s order as to which address of the assessee the notices were sent and served before 30th November, 2007, it has to be adjudicated afresh; so we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and remand the matter back to the file of the AO, with a direction to clearly spell out to which address (complete address) the notice u/s 143(2) was issued to and sent before 30th November, 2007 and what proof he has in his record to show that it was duly 3 & 177/Del./2011 served up on the assessee ; and whether the section 143(2) notice was served upon the assessee in the address mentioned by the assessee in the return of income and as to whether the assessee had intimated the AO of any change in address. All these questions need to be examined by the AO and decide the issue de novo as to whether the notice u/s 143 (2) has been issued and served upon the assessee before 30.11.2007 and other grounds too. We order accordingly. ITA No.177/Del/2011 4. Since the penalty is levied on the addition based on the impugned addition which is set aside back to the file of AO, the penalty imposed is also set aside and remitted back to the AO to await the outcome of the quantum proceedings in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms. Order pronounced in open court on this day of 23rd February, 2016.