Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. We on a perusal of the "tear off acknowledgment slip" (wherein date of 20.03.2013 which we term it as 'First tear off acknowledgement') shown by the Ld. CIT, DR, we note that though it was a "tear off Acknowledgment slip" there is neither any [g.i.r] number, name nor address of Assessee (no name of private ltd company or LLP) is written on it; further, there is neither any information as to who received it, nor on what date it was served; moreover, there is no mention about what was served like notice, order etc. So, the "tear of acknowledgment slip" is found "blank" except a seal of Brolly Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (wherein we note that in the seal except the words B,D,P,L all are small letters) and a scribbling of date written as 20.03.2013, which does not in any way gives the impression that the Show Cause Notice which is addressed to company's earlier address at G.C. Avenue dated 18.03.2013 have been served upon the LLP at its address at Princep Street, it is only a blank "tear of acknowledgment slip" with a seal and date, which doesn't even convey that the staff of dissolved private limited company received the SCN on 20.03.2013. Moreover, the erstwhile director of company on sworn affidavit has denied the receipt of SCN on 20.03.2013, which fact has not been controverted by the Revenue by adducing any affidavit of process-server of the department of serving the SCN on 20.03.2013 to the company and most important explaining as to why is the "tear of acknowledgment slip." was with a seal of company and date written on it and remaining portion was left blank. So, with the 'First tear off acknowledgement slip' we are not persuaded to accept that the private limited company or the LLP received the SCN on 20.03.2016.

11. We also note that in the department's file, two copies of the Show Cause Notice issued by Pr. CIT dated March 25/26, 2013 of which one we note is the office copy and other is a photo copy. In the original office copy and photocopy we note it is addressed to the Private Limited Company at G. C. Avenue as well as R.B.C. Road. We note that the Princep Street address is not mentioned below the name/caption of the company. However, a careful perusal of the photocopy of the Show Cause Notice, at the bottom of the Show Cause Notice, we note a scribbling which is illegible hand written which portion reads "P- 103, Princep Street, Kol-72" and a signature with an endorsement which is legible "Received" dated 26.03.2013, Mobile No. 9078152601 and staff. For better understanding and appreciation the photocopy of the Show Cause Notice with the aforesaid endorsement M/s. Brolly Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AY 2008-09 which is the trump card of the Revenue to suggest that notice has been served at the Princep Street address is reproduced below:

M/s. Brolly Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AY 2008-09

12. Assailing the scribbling on aforesaid photocopy of Show Cause Notice, the Ld. AR wondered and pointed out the infirmities on it to show that it was an afterthought action to wriggle out of the conundrum the department has fallen into, for not being vigilant and to escape from its sheer negligence's has ventured to do such things to create at least a doubt that the notice was served in Princep Street address. According to Ld. AR, if the said communication was infact sent to Princep Street, that address should have appeared below the name/caption of the addressee. According to him, if the Princep Street address was found out after the said notice was prepared, the G.C. Avenue and R.B.C. Road addresses should have been struck off and the Princep Street address should have been incorporated which is not the case. The Ld. AR pointed out that in the Princep Street address there is no mention of room number or as to which floor is not written (i.e. Room No. 24, 3rd floor) which fact itself brings out the folly that this scribbling was an after- thought to cover their mistake in addressing to earlier addresses (G. C. Avenue and R.B.C Road), which is apparent. As far as the signature and mobile number of the purported recipient who has described himself/herself as "staff" the Ld. AR pointed out that the signature of the recipient is not identifiable, since it does not pertain to any staff employed by the LLP or to even know person of partner of the LLP. And the designation "staff" under the anonymous signature is, to say the least is vague and it was pointed out that there is no receiving seal of the LLP. It was brought to our notice that in the affidavit filed on behalf of one of the partners of the LLP states that the author of the acknowledgment appearing in the bottom half of the photocopy of the communication dated March 25/26, 2013 could not be identified. It is asserted in the affidavit that such hand writing and signature is not of any person working for LLP at Room No. 24, 3rd Floor, P-l03, Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. The Ld. AR pointed out that since the partner of LLP is familiar with the employees hand writing and signature he would be able to easily identify the signature and the hand writing of his staff but since it was not of his employees, he asserted this fact. It is further asserted in the affidavit by the partner of LLP that neither the notice dated March 18, 2013 nor the notice dated March 25/26, 2013 was served on any person connected or employed with the M/s. Brolly Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AY 2008-09 LLP and, therefore, the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263 dated March 28, 2013 was passed without affording any opportunity to the LLP. Moreover, it was brought to our notice that Shri Sushanta Kumar Parida, ex- Director of the dissolved/defunct Private Limited Company has also stated in the affidavit that the author of the aforesaid acknowledgement could not be identified by him. It was brought to our knowledge that several attempts were made to dial the mobile phone number mentioned in the endorsement, but the voice message they got every time was that the phone is switched off. Shri Sushanta Kumar Parida, Ex-Director has stated that neither the notice dated March 18, 2013 nor the notice dated March 25/26, 2013 was served upon the company and the order dated March 28, 2013 under section 263 was passed without affording any opportunity. It was pointed out to us that the revenue has not controverted the statements made in the said two affidavits which have been filed before us. Moreover, we note that the Revenue is harping heavily on the two Acknowledgement tear off slip to contend that the notice/order has been served upon the company at G. C. Avenue on 20.03.2013, then the question arises as to where is the tear off slip of the department on which the receipt of notice could have been endorsed with signature of the receiver at princep street along with seal of LLP, rather than scribbling incomplete address and signature of an anonymous person, which does not inspire confidence as to serving of reminder letter dated 25/26.03.2013 at princep street address of LLP. This failure of not having the tear off slip on the file of Pr. CIT makes the scribbling of Princep Street to be non-genuine and cannot in anyway controvert the sworn affidavit of partner of LLP and ex director of company. Moreover, the erstwhile director of company and partner of LLP, on sworn affidavits has denied the receipt of the reminder notice dated 25/26.03.2013 fixing the case on 28.03.2013, which fact has not been controverted by the Revenue by adducing any affidavit of process-server of the department of serving the SCN on 26.03.2013 to the LLP/company at its prince street and most important explaining as to why is the "tear of acknowledgment slip." was not used while serving of notice which reflects complete proper address, along with the recipients seal of LLP/company and date written on it and details of who received it. So, in the absence of complete 'tear off M/s. Brolly Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AY 2008-09 acknowledgement slip' as discussed, we are not persuaded to accept that the private limited company or the LLP received the reminder SCN dated 25/26.03.2016 at its proper prince street address.

15. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, there is nothing to show that the communication dated March 25/26, 2013 was sent to or delivered or handed over to anybody at Room No. 24, 3rd Floor, P-103, Princep Street, Kolkata-700072. The person who affixed his signature acknowledging receipt of the communication dated March 25/26, 2013 is unidentified and there is nothing to show that the acknowledgement receipt scribbled in respect of the communication dated March 25/26, 2013 is of any person/authorised person of the company or LLP.