Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that ,the  Tribunal could not be faulted for having entertained the additional ground relating to non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) raised by the assessee. The Department did not have sufficient opportunity to meet this point. There had not been a transparent approach by the Department while completing the assessment. If the assessee which was a registered company had failed to adhere to the commitment made through its chartered accountant by letter dated January 27, 1996, there was no reason why the Assessing Officer should have waited for more than 20 months and issued another letter to the assessee to file the return along with the books of account, vouchers, etc. The reason for not taking any action since February 1996 till October 1997 remained unexplained. Even after the expiry of peremptory time limit fixed in the letter dated October 1, 1997, i. e., up to October 13, 1997, the Assessing Officer did not take any action immediately but waited. There was no necessity for the Assessing Officer to have waited beyond February 1996 to complete the best judgment assessment under section 144. Even if the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal issued notices to the authorized representative or the chartered accountant or advocate of the assessee, the notices would have to be issued to the assessee at the registered office. The Tribunal having admitted the additional ground should have considered the contentions advanced by the Department giving it reasonable time and recorded its satisfaction why the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department was to raise all its contentions on all the grounds before the Commissioner (Appeals). Matter remanded. ( AY. 2005 -06)