Appeal upheld on tax notice validity & jurisdiction, assessment order voided, business loss disallowance dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, upholding the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) and the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer. However, the assessment order by the Additional Commissioner was deemed void due to lack of jurisdiction. The issues regarding the disallowance of business loss and deduction of property tax, which were not pressed by the assessee, were dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer to issue notice under Section 143(2).
3. Validity of assessment order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax without an order under Section 127.
4. Disallowance of business loss and deduction of property tax (not pressed by the assessee).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Service of Notice under Section 143(2)
The assessee contended that the notice issued on 21.07.2008 by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward 19(4), was not served. The ITO relied on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act to presume service, while the assessee denied receipt via affidavit. The Tribunal referenced various judicial pronouncements, including CIT Vs. Silver Streak Trading P. Ltd. and CIT Vs. Messrs Lunar Diamonds Ltd., which placed the onus on the Revenue to prove actual service. However, in this case, the Revenue provided proof of dispatch through speed post and the notice was not returned undelivered, creating a presumption of valid service. The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to rebut this presumption effectively, noting the change of address not communicated to the Income Tax Department. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed this ground, affirming the service of notice as valid.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer to Issue Notice
The assessee argued that the ITO, Ward 19(4), lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice as per the jurisdiction order dated 31.03.2006. The Tribunal examined the order, which authorized the ITO to exercise powers over all incomes or classes of income. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the ITO had the jurisdiction to issue the notice, dismissing the assessee's claim.

Issue 3: Validity of Assessment Order by Additional Commissioner without Order under Section 127
The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, arguing that no order under Section 127 transferring the case was issued. The Tribunal noted that the Additional Commissioner was claimed to have concurrent jurisdiction, but no such order was presented on record. In the absence of an order conferring concurrent jurisdiction, the Tribunal found the assessment order void ab initio, thus allowing this ground in favor of the assessee.

Issue 4: Disallowance of Business Loss and Deduction of Property Tax
The assessee did not press these grounds, and hence, they were dismissed as not pressed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) and the jurisdiction of the ITO but declared the assessment order by the Additional Commissioner void due to lack of jurisdiction. The disallowance of business loss and property tax deduction issues were dismissed as not pressed.

---