$ 26 & 27 * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28.11.2017 + ITA 1062/2017 & CM 43174/2017 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant versus M/S RAVNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent + ITA 1063/2017 & CM 43175-76/2017 PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 ..... Appellant versus M/S RAVNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel . For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Ghai and Mr. Shyamalima Burah, Advs. . CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) ITA 1062-1063/2017 Page 1 of 4 1. Revenue is aggrieved by findings of ITAT for AY 2007-08 which upheld CIT(A) s decision. 2. facts of case are that assessee had filed its returns on 30.03.2007 declaring income of Rs. 36,609/-. It was initially processed under Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. assessment, however, was completed on 11.12.2009 after case was put up for scrutiny. 3. assessment order recorded, inter-alia, that notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 15.09.2008 and also sent through speed post subsequently at address provided by assessee, on 23.09.2008. assessee was not represented and notice under Section 142(1) was issued dated 20.01.2009. Apparently, notice was again issued under said provisions along with questionnaire through speed post on 18.02.2009, this too did not receive any response. final notice on 18.03.2009 was issued. On returnable day, assessee s representation contended and filed some details regarding case, which was adjourned to 08.04.2009. 4. Subsequently, according to assessment order, subsequent notice was issued and matter was fixed for hearing on 12.11.2009. As assessee was not represented on date of hearing, AO completed assessment making certain additions based upon disallowance in respect of salaries paid, web designing expenses, share application money and current liabilities. total income was assessed was Rs. 1,02,15,446/-. ITA 1062-1063/2017 Page 2 of 4 5. assessee appealed to CIT(A). Its contentions with respect to issuance of notice under Section 143(2), were rejected. However, disallowance and other additions made by AO were set aside. Upon appeal and cross appeal by rival parties, ITAT accepted assessee s contentions, after considering record and also taking note of remand report and comments received thereon. 6. Revenue contends that ITAT erroneously found that notice was not issued. It is highlighted that notice was, in fact, issued under Section 143(2) at notified address. All attempts were made subsequently to secure presence of assessee. record also revealed that assessee did participate at later stage after its representations were obtained in proceedings. In these circumstances, deletion directed by ITAT as was urged; is untenable. 7. findings of lower authorities especially ITAT, in opinion of Court, does not call for any interference. So far as findings with respect to notice under Section 143(2) is concerned, ITAT has considered entire record afresh and clearly rendered finding that on 15.09.2008, assessment framed in this case, nowhere reflected that notice under Section 143(2) was issued. Para 10 of impugned order, pointed out with respect to this aspect and having regard to all factual material in these circumstances compelled ITAT to follow reasoning of Supreme Court in ITA 1062-1063/2017 Page 3 of 4 Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) . In this case, impugned order does not call any interference. So far as question with respect to deletion on merits is concerned, findings are concurrent. 8. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. appeals are, therefore, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) SANJEEV SACHDEVA (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 28, 2017 rs ITA 1062-1063/2017 Page 4 of 4 Pr Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-2 v. Ravnet Solutions Pvt. Ltd