BHARAT SEKHSARIA, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN. CIR. - 6, MUMBAI

ITA 2070/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7426 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHAPATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SHARMA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Validity of assessment; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH I ,MUMBAI BEFPRE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2070/MUM/08 (A.Y. 2002-03) SHRI BHARAT SEKHSARIA, 719, ROTUNDA, B.S.MARG, FORT, MUMBAI-400 023. PAN: AAVPS1689L VS. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, CENT.CIR.6, MUMBAI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHR I RAJIV SHARMA. RESPONDENT BY SHRI MAHAPATRA. O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL, FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19-02-2008 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), CENTRA L-1, MUMBAI, AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THOUGH SEV ERAL GROUNDS WERE RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ANNEXED TO FORM NO. 36, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL PRESSED FOR CONSIDERATION ONLY GRO UND NO. 11, I.E., WITH REFERENCE TO THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.14 3 OF THE ACT AS, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED A FTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND HENCE THE PROCEEDINGS EMANATING FROM A BELATED NOTICE ARE ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2. BRIEF FACTS, NECESSARY FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL, ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ORIGINALLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALING IN SHARES & SECURITIES AND FINANCING. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO BUSINESS ACTIVIT Y. HOWEVER, SINCE HE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME ON SHARES, AFTER SETTING OFF OF THE LOSSES, HE DECLARED A LOSS OF ITA 2070/M/08 BHARAT SEIKHSARIA 2 RS.7,19,844/- BY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31- 10-2002. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESS EE ON 08-12-1997. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., A NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT ON 09-07-2003 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 19-07-2003. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, A FRESH NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 18-02-2005 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143 OF THE ACT ON 28-03-2005 BY DETER MINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1.45 CRORES AS AGAINST A LOSS OF RS.7.19 LAKHS D ECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE ON 19-07-2003 OR WITH REGARD TO EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR SERVICE OF N OTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME, THE AS SESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHEREIN DISALLOWANCES MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE CHALLENGED. HOWEVER, BY WAY OF AN ADDITIONAL G ROUND OF APPEAL, DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDED THAT : THE NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS SERVED O N ME MUCH AFTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT. THEREFORE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(2) OF THE I.T. ACT IS AB -INITIO NULL N VOID. THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE ANNULLED. 5. SINCE IT IS A LEGAL ISSUE, THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITT ED THE GROUND AND CALLED FOR THE REPORT OF THE A.O., IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE A. O. SUBMITTED THAT A NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 09-07-2003 AND THE NOTICE SENT THROUGH SPEED POST WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 19-07-20 03. PROOF OF DOCUMENT OF POSTAL AUTHORITIES SHOWING THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 19-07-2003 WAS PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WHEN THE SAME WAS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SU BMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COPY OF THE POSTAL AU THORITIES BEARS THE SIGNATURE OF ONE PERSON NAMED ANAND MITTAL WHO WAS NEITHER AN EMPLOYEE NOR ITA 2070/M/08 BHARAT SEIKHSARIA 3 AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE REGISTERED LE TTERS. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO BE A PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE DESPITE TH E FACT THAT THE RUBBER STAMP OF M/S.RAMKRISHNA SEKHSARIA (PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT) WAS AFFIXED UNAUTHORISEDLY ON THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE AND IN THI S REGARD OBSERVED AS UNDER : I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE AVERMENTS AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS AFFIDAVIT AS FILED BEFORE ME. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS PURELY LEGAL AND THIS CAN BE TAKEN UP AT ANY STA GE OF PROCEEDINGS BUT NEVER THE LESS I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS NOT TAKEN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OR OBJECTION OF ANY SUCH SORT BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO IN HI S REPORT HAS SENT A CLINCHING EVIDENCE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE NOT ICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY SOME PERSON (WHOSE NAME IS NOT LEGIBLE) ON THE R UBBER STAMP OF THE APPELLANTS PROPRIETORY CONCERN. THE ABOVE EVIDENCE IS IN THE FORM OF AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND COPY OF THE JOURNAL OF DEPARTME NTAL OF POST DATED 18.07.2003 WHICH CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE LETTER AT S.NO.2208 PERTAINING TO APPELLANTS CONCERN WAS DELIVERED AND THE ACKNOWLED GEMENT IS CLEARLY DATED AS 19.7.2003. AS STATED ABOVE THAT THE NAME O F THE RECEIPIENTS OF THE LETTER/NOTICE WHO HAS RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF M/S . RAMKRISHNA SEKHSARIA IS NOT LEGIBLE BUT THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSION HAS STATED THAT THE ABOVE NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY ONE PERSON SHRI ANAND M ITTAL WHO HAD BEEN NEITHER AN EMPLOYED NOR HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED TO RECE IVED THE LETTER/NOTICE ON HIS BEHALF. SINCE THE NAME OF THE RECEIPIENTS OF THE NOTICE IS NOT LEGIBLE THEN HOW CAN THE APPELLANT IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIO N HAS RECOGNIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE ABOVE PERSON SHRI ANAND MITTAL. IN FACT IT GOES TO PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE SIGNATURE O F THE PERSON WHO HAS RECEIVED THE LETTER ON HIS BEHALF AND HAD THE TACI T APPROVAL TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE. IT IS THE CASE WHERE THE DEPARTMENT HAS SEN T THE NOTICE THROUGH A NOTICE SERVER AND IT IS A CASE WHERE THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT THROUGH POSTAL AUTHORITIES AND THE ADDRESS THEREON HAS BEEN PROPERLY WRITTEN WHICH IS ITSELF MANIFESTED WITH THE PROOF THAT THE LETTER HAD BEEN DELIVERED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS, THEN IN THAT SITUATION THERE WOULD BE PRESUMPTION OF EFFECTIVE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE W HICH HAS BEEN PROPERLY ADDRESSED AND PROPERLY PAID FOR THE STAMPS. RELIANC E IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRILAL MANCHAND AND CO. V. ITO (1978) UPTC 506 AT PAGE 510 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT ONCE THE LETTER AD DRESSED PROPERLY AND RECEIVED BY SOMEONE ELSE ON BEHALF OF THE ADDRESSS, THEN THERE WOULD BE A PRESUMPTION OF EFFECTIVE SERVICE IF THE NOTICE IS P ROPERLY ADDRESSED, PREPAID AND POSTED BY REGISTERED POST. THEREFORE UNDER THES E CIRCUMSTANCES AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH CO URT OF ALLAHABAD AS REFERRED TO ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE NOTICE DATED 9.7.2003 HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE APPELLANT ON 19.7.2 003 WHICH IS BACKED BY THE EVIDENCE OF DEPARTMENT OF POST, GOVERNMENT O F INDIA AND AS SUCH I ITA 2070/M/08 BHARAT SEIKHSARIA 4 ACCORDINGLY HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER UNDER 143(2) IS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION AS CLAIMED BY TH E APPELLANT AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AS TAKEN BY THE APPELLA NT IS HAVING NO MERIT THEREIN AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 8. AS REGARDS THE INDEPENDENT GROUNDS CHALLENGING T HE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE A.O., THE LD. C IT(A) DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS AFFIRMED TH E ORDER OF THE A.O. 9. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEF ORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL STRONGLY SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE RETURN OF INCOM E WAS FILED ON 31-10-2002, FIRST NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 18-2-2005 WHI CH IS BEYOND THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE LAW. THEREFORE, PROCEEDINGS EM ANATING FROM SUCH NOTICE ARE ILLEGAL SINCE THEY ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE L D. COUNSEL ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO STATE THAT THOUGH THE REVENUE CLAIMS THAT A NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. ON 18-7-2003 DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND THE HEARING ON 31- 7-2003, NO SUCH NOTICE WAS, IN FACT, ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH IS EVIDENCE D BY THE FACT THAT THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY COMMENCES FROM 9-3-2005; HAD THE REVENU E ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT ON 18-7-2003, IT COULD HAVE B EEN REFLECTED IN THE ORDER SHEET. PLACING RELIANCE UPON CERTAIN DECISION REFER RED TO IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT EVEN IF I T IS ASSUMED THAT A NOTICE IS ISSUED ON 18-7-2003, IT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY A PERSO N WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE NOTICES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IN WHICH EVENT IT HAS TO BE ASSUMED THAT THERE IS NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE. THEREFORE, REC KONED FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN, THE ONLY NOTICE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE U /S. 143(2) OF THE ACT IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND HENCE PROCEEDIN GS CONTINUED ON THE STRENGTH OF SUCH NOTICE HAVE TO BE TREATED AS BARRED BY LIMI TATION. HE ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.1 TO SUBMIT THAT THE A.O. HAS PA SSED THE ORDER IN A BIASED ITA 2070/M/08 BHARAT SEIKHSARIA 5 MANNER. ADVERTING OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED, W HICH WERE NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE A.O. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION TH AT THERE IS PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND HENCE PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREBY ARE VALID : (A) 306 ITR 309 (DEL.) CIT VS. YAMU INDUST RIES LTD. (B) 183 TAXMAN 401 (P&H) SAT NARAIN VS. CI T HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE CLAIM O F STATING, ON ONE HAND, THAT NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED BUT ON THE OTHER HAND CLAIMIN G THAT THE NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON A PERSON WHO WAS AN EX EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSE E AND HE WRONGLY USED THE RUBBER STAMP OF M/S.RAMKRISHNA SEKHSARIA; WHEN THE SIGNATURE ITSELF IS NOT LEGIBLE, RECOGNIZING IT TO BE THE SIGNATURE OF SHRI ANAND MITTAL WOULD LEND SUPPORT TO THE CLAIM OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECEIVING ALL TH E NOTICES PERSONALLY. HE ALSO STATED THAT IT IS NORMAL PRACTICE TO PERMIT OTHERS FROM THE OFFICE TO RECEIVE LETTERS, WITHOUT GIVING ANY OFFICIAL LETTTER TO THE POSTAL D EPARTMENT AND IF AT ALL THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO CLAIM THAT SHRI ANAND MITTAL WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, DUTY IS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW AS TO WHAT FURTHER ACTION WAS INITIATED AGAINST SHRI ANAND MITTAL OR BY WAY OF COMPLAINT TO THE POSTAL D EPARTMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL, IT HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS AWARE OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE AND HENCE NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED BEFORE THE A.O. WITH AN INTENT TO ITA 2070/M/08 BHARAT SEIKHSARIA 6 RAISE A CLAIM ONLY AT A LATER STAGE I.E. BEFORE AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE THUS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORIT IES. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE OF NON- SERVICE OF NOTICE. AS COULD BE NOTICED FROM THE PRO VISIONS OF SEC. 143 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO NEED FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR COMPLETI ON OF ASSESSMENT IF INCOME/LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVE R, IF THE A.O. CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERSTATED THE INCOME, HE IS ENTITLED TO MAKE A SCRUTINY UPON ISSU ING A NOTICE U/S.142 OF THE ACT CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVID ENCE ETC. IN PROOF OF THE INCOME DECLARED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISO TO SEC . 143(2) OF THE ACT, NO NOTICE SHALL BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE RETURN OF INCOME HAVING BEEN FILED ON 31-10-2002, THE A.O . IS ENTITLED TO ISSUE A NOTICE ANY TIME PRIOR TO 30-9-2003. IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HERE IS PROOF OF SERVICE OF A LETTER DATED 9-7-2003 ADDRESSED BY THE A.O. TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE A.O., BY OVERSIGHT, DID NOT RECORD IT IN THE ORDER SHEET. MERE NON-RECORDING OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IN THE ORDER SHEET SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A BASIS TO CONCLUDE THAT NOTICE WAS NOT I SSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF A DOCUMENT OF THE POSTAL AU THORITIES TO SHOW THAT A LETTER WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 19-7-2003. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ALSO NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIO N TO ANALYSE THE VERACITY OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO NON-SERVI CE OF NOTICE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED A PLEA WITH REGARD TO NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE BY RAISING A PLEA T HAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE BARRED ITA 2070/M/08 BHARAT SEIKHSARIA 7 BY LIMITATION. EVEN AT THE TIME OF FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), NO SUCH GROUND WAS URGED INITIALLY. IT APPEARS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS (APPEAL WAS HEARD ON 13-9-2007), THE AS SESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND WITH REGARD TO SERVICE OF NOTICE AFTER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. IN OTHER WORDS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AFT ER A GAP OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT NOTICE U/S.143(2) DATED 28-2-2005 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND HENCE T HE PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREBY ARE AB INITIO NULL AND VOID. FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. AND THE A.O. HAS SENT A CLINCH ING EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES THAT A NOTICE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY SOME PERSON (WHO SE NAME IS NOT LEGIBLE) AND RUBBER STAMP IS ALSO AFFIXED ON THE A/D CARD. WHEN THIS WAS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS IMMEDIATELY ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ILLEGIBLE S IGNATURE AS THAT OF SHRI ANAND MITTAL AND ALSO ADMITS THAT THE RUBBER STAMP IS THA T OF THE ASSESSEES PROPRIETARY CONCERN. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NEVER AUTHORIZED ANY PERSON TO RECEIVE NOTICES ON HIS BEHALF. THERE IS N O EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT ALL THE NOTICES WERE RECEIVED BY HIM IN THE PA ST AND SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPUGNED DATE. IN THIS BACKGROUND, MERE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT SHRI ANAND MITTAL IS NO LONGER WORKING WITH THE ASSESSEE AND H ENCE HE HAS NO AUTHORIZATION TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE AND FURTHER HE HAS WRONGLY US ED THE RUBBER STAMP WOULD MERELY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENDS TO RAISE A TE CHNICAL PLEA AFTER A LAPSE OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF ASSES SMENT WITHOUT PROVING AS TO HOW THE DELAY IN SERVICE, IF ANY, PREJUDICES THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. THE C IRCUMSTANCES COMPEL US TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS DEEMED SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS CITED (SUPRA) BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND URGED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON ITA 2070/M/08 BHARAT SEIKHSARIA 8 MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIR MED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY MATERIAL TO CONTRA DICT THE FINDINGS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2010 . SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI:31ST MARCH , 2010 COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE. 2.DEPARTMENT. 3 CIT(A), CENTRAL-1,MUMBAI. 4 CIT, CENTRAL-1,MUMBAI. 5.DR,I BENCH,MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, NG: ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA 2070/M/08 BHARAT SEIKHSARIA 9 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 30-3-10 SR.PS/ 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 31-3-10 SR.PS/ 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER