Tribunal validates affixture notices, upholds assessment order, grants fair hearing

The Tribunal found the notices served by affixture and received within the statutory period to be valid, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal directed the AO to proceed with the assessment order after granting both parties a fair hearing. The Revenue's appeal was successful, and the assessment order was upheld as valid.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) by the ITO, Ward-3(2), Chandigarh.
2. Validity of the assessment order despite the notice being served through affixture.
3. Jurisdiction and procedural lapses in the issuance of the notice.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the notice issued under section 143(2) by the ITO, Ward-3(2), Chandigarh
The Revenue contended that the notice under section 143(2) was issued on 25/09/2008 and served through affixture on 26/09/2008. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the notice was validly issued and served within the prescribed time limit. The assessee, however, claimed that the notice was served after the expiry of the six-month period from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, making it invalid. The CIT(A) found that the assessee's jurisdiction was with ITO, Ward 1(2), Kota, not Chandigarh, and thus quashed the notice as invalid.

Issue 2: Validity of the assessment order despite the notice being served through affixture
The AO issued multiple notices, including one on 26/09/2008 served by affixture at the Chandigarh address and another on 30/09/2008 sent to the Kota address. The assessee argued that the notice was received on 09/10/2008, beyond the statutory limit. The CIT(A) verified that the assessee's return for A.Y. 2007-08 was filed with the address of Kota, and the first valid notice was dated 30/09/2008, served on 09/10/2008, making it barred by limitation. The CIT(A) declared the assessment order ab-initio void.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction and procedural lapses in the issuance of the notice
The CIT(A) concluded that the jurisdiction to assess the assessee lay with ITO, Ward 1(2), Kota, and not Chandigarh. The return filed at Chandigarh appeared to have been filed by someone else. The AO's notices were thus not correctly issued. The CIT(A) advised corrective action to book the guilty party. The Revenue argued that the notice served by affixture on 26/09/2008 and the subsequent notice dated 30/09/2008 were within the statutory period, making them valid. The Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgments in V.R.A. Cotton Mills P. Ltd. and Amarjit Singh Tut supported the validity of notices issued within the prescribed period, even if received later.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, held that the notice served by affixture on 26/09/2008 and the notice received on 09/10/2008 were within the 12-month period from the date of return filing (31/10/2007), thus valid under the law. The Tribunal cited relevant case law supporting the validity of notices issued within the prescribed period. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the AO to frame the order as per law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both parties. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed.

---