“service of notice”

Rba Buildtech Private Limited, Uttar Pradesg vs. DCIT, ACIT, Cen Circle, Noida

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Thus, submitted that the assessment order itself become void-ab-initio which was framed based on the defective service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel has also relied on plethora of Judgment in support of his contentions. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative vehemently ... limitation, the notice was validly issued for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961, and held that the date of service of notice was not relevant. In fact, the Department has relied upon the said judgment. The said judgment squarely applies to Notice classified as category

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Rba Buildtech Private Limited, Noida

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No 4651/Del is

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 4651/Del/Del/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Rba Buildtech Private Limited Vs Dcit/Acit A-66, Sector 63, Noida, Central Circle-1, 2Nd Floor, Uttar Pradesh Arto Complex, Ssector- Pan: Aagcr928Sf 33, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

Thus, submitted that the assessment order itself become void-ab-initio which was framed based on the defective service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel has also relied on plethora of Judgment in support of his contentions. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative vehemently ... limitation, the notice was validly issued for the purpose of Section 149 of the Act of 1961, and held that the date of service of notice was not relevant. In fact, the Department has relied upon the said judgment. The said judgment squarely applies to Notice classified as category

Ram Kumar Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal

same. Thus looking to these facts we find no error in the action of AO in Page | 16 ITA No.2676/Del/2016 the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act and accordingly, Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 29. Ground of appeal No.5 raised

Mohd Rashid, Bulandshahr vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(2), Bulandshahar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

were sent by the CIT(A) on email id ‘mohdamiradv30@gmail.com’ whereas in Form No. 35 the assessee had given email address ‘akbarpurtravels@gmail.com’ for service of notice. The ld. Counsel submitted that since the notices were sent on the wrong email address they were never received by the assessee. Hence ... assessee on email id ‘mohdamiradv30@gmail.com’ whereas in Column No. 17 of Form No. 35 the assessee has given email address ‘akbarpurtravels@gmail.com’ for service of notices. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable

Shaloo and S Buildcon Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-23(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is upheld and matter is restored to the AO for fresh assessment on the return of income filed by the assessee, in accordance with law and principles of natural justice

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

infirmity in the impugned order, since the assessee did not get fair opportunity to make submissions before the AO in absence of service of notice, the CIT(A) has rightly referred the case back to the Assessing Officer for making fresh assessment. 3 5. In the result, impugned order