The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 15, Mumbai v. M/S.r & N Tv Productions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.262 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 15, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.R & N TV Productions ..Respondent. Mr.A.R. Malhotra i/by Mr.P.S. Cardozo for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 25[th] March 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2007-08, following questions of law have been formulated for our consideration. “a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in holding that there was no evidence by which it can be said that the statutory notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) were served upon the assessee and the department could not bring any tangible material to substantiate the claim of the AO that the notices were duly served ?Tribunal is right in holding that there was no evidence by which it can be said that the statutory notices under Section 142(1) and 143(2) were served upon the assessee and the department could not bring any tangible material to substantiate the claim of the AO that the notices were duly served ? b)Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is required to take into consideration that in the light of service of notice on the last known address as well as on the address given in the return for AY 2007-08 by the assessee himself, it is observed that there is material on record to show that due service Tribunal is required to take into consideration that in the light of service of notice on the last known address as well as on the address given in the return for AY 2007-08 by the assessee himself, it is observed that there is material on record to show that due service 3.The assessing officer by an exparte assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) estimated the income of the respondent at Rs.1.66 crores. 4.In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) held that the assessment order under Section 144 of the Act was bad as the same was passed without satisfaction of the condition precedent viz. service of notice either under Section 141(1) or Section 143(2) of the Act. On further appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the CIT (A). The Tribunal records that before the CIT (A) or even before it, no material was produced to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that the notices as required under Section 144 of the Act were duly served on the respondent – assessee. In the above view, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. 5.As the impugned order of the Tribunal is based on concurrent findings of fact, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 6.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)