Court dismisses challenge to assessment notice for 2008-09; issues around service methods remain unresolved.

The court dismissed the petition challenging the notice to reopen assessment for the assessment year 2008-09. The petitioner objected to the notice being pre-dated and improperly served, alleging lack of proper service and attempted creation of evidence by the authority. Despite the department's arguments supporting the service methods, including personal delivery and affixing in the presence of witnesses, the court found the issue highly disputed and declined to decide on it in a writ petition, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice for reopening assessment of assessment year 2008-09 based on alleged pre-dated and unserved notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged a notice to reopen its assessment for the assessment year 2008-09, contending that the notice was pre-dated and not served before the last date. The department claimed the notice was issued and served after recording reasons on 31.05.2015, through personal delivery to a representative of the petitioner and affixing at the office address. The petitioner objected to the process, alleging lack of proper service and attempted creation of evidence by the authority. The petitioner emphasized that the alleged panch-witness disowned his signature on the panchnama, casting doubt on the service of notice through affixing. Moreover, the petitioner denied appointing the person who received the notice on its behalf, questioning the legal validity of such service.

Regarding the objections raised by the petitioner, the Assessing Officer did not rely on the service through affixing. The department argued that all necessary documents, including reasons recorded, were present in the original file, with the draft notice approved on 31.03.2015. The Income Tax Inspector served the notice through affixing after initially serving it to the representative of the petitioner, supported by the presence of two panchas. The department contended that disputed factual questions should not be examined in a writ petition. The similarity between the panch-witness's signatures on the panchnama and the affidavit filed by him was highlighted, suggesting the authenticity of the service of notice.

The court examined the original department file, finding the Assessing Officer's reasons recorded on 31.05.2015 and the approval of the draft notice on 31.03.2015 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. While the issuance of notice seemed clear, the service of notice was more contentious. The department claimed dual service methods: personal delivery and affixing in the presence of panch witnesses due to the office being closed. The court noted the lack of specific observations by the Assessing Officer on the non-service contention raised by the petitioner. The court attempted to compare the signatures of the panch-witness on the panchnama and the affidavit, acknowledging the difficulty in conclusively determining their identity. Ultimately, due to the highly disputed factual nature of the issue, the court declined to decide on the matter in a writ petition, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---