These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order dated 30/03/2017 passed by CIT(A)-27, New Delhi for assessment year 2006-07 & 2011-12 respectively.
I.T.A. No. 3738/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2006-07) I.T.A. No. 3740/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2011-12)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 3738/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2006-07)
I.T.A. No. 3740/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2011-12)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
Central Circle-19, Room No.
104, First Floor, Hall No. 1, E-2,
Saamag Construction Ltd.
B-67, Sarita Vihar
Appellant by Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Respondent by None
Date of Hearing 06.09.2021
Date of Pronouncement 15.09.2021
When the matter was called out none appeared for the assessee despite issuing notice through RPAD by the Registry of the Tribunal as well as through notice dated 13/7/2021 by the Revenue Office. The Ld. DR has submitted report dated 11/8/2021 wherein it is stated that the notice was served physically on 11th August, 2021 by giving details of hearing on 6/9/2021. Therefore, we are proceeding with both the appeals ex-parte and taking the contentions of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) as the contentions taken before us. The Ld. DR argued ITA No. 3740/Del/2017 in the beginning.
2. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has proceeded on the basis that no proper service was effectuated to the assessee but in-fact the assessee was properly served which can be seen from the CIT(A)’s order at page 13 wherein the remark of the Assessing Officer was extracted.
3. We have heard Ld. DR and cognizance of all the relevant material available on record including that of assessee’s submissions was taken into account. The CIT(A) has only proceeded on the basis that the notice was not served, but in the affidavit of the assessee filed by the Director of the assessee Company, it is clearly mentioned that the notice u/s 142 (1) was personally served by the ACIT, Central Circle-10, New Delhi on the Authorized Employee of the Company. As regards to notice u/s 143(2), the same was served by Speed Post and at no point of time, the CIT(A) stated that or given a finding that the notice was return back. There was no postal report called for by the CIT(A) and merely on the basis of assessee’s submissions, the matter was allowed in favour of the assessee on technical issue and not at all decided on merit.
4. In result, both the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 15th Day of September, 2021.
Please find attached the enclosed file for the full judgement