Court quashes reassessment notice, cites procedural errors. Taxpayer prevails.

The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the reassessment notice, the order under section 144/147, and consequential actions. The court directed the concerned authorities to file a report within eight weeks and listed the case for compliance on a specific date. The judgment favored the assessee due to the Assessing Officer's failure to adhere to prescribed legal procedures, specifically in serving proper notice and following Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order dated February 13, 2015 for the assessment year 2010-11 and consequent proceedings.
2. Proper service of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Compliance with Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules for service of notices.

Analysis:
1. The assessee challenged an assessment order dated February 13, 2015, for the assessment year 2010-11, completed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following a reassessment notice issued on December 24, 2013. The issue arose when the assessee claimed that the notice was never served upon her, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.
2. The Assessing Officer sent multiple notices to the old address of the assessee under section 148(1) without receiving any response, leading to a final notice proposing an ex parte assessment order under section 144/147. The assessment was completed without the assessee's knowledge, raising concerns about the validity of the proceedings due to improper service of notice.
3. Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules stipulates the mode of service of notices, emphasizing the use of addresses available in the PAN database, Income-tax return, or the last filed return. In this case, the assessee had updated her address in subsequent returns, but the Assessing Officer failed to access the correct address information, leading to the completion of reassessment on a best judgment basis. The court highlighted the mandatory nature of following prescribed procedures and rejected the Revenue's argument invoking section 292B to justify the lack of proper notice.
4. The court referred to legal precedents emphasizing that adherence to prescribed procedures is essential, and any deviation renders the proceedings invalid. The Assessing Officer's mechanical approach, relying on outdated information without verifying the correct address, was criticized. The court directed appropriate action against the Assessing Officer for the lapses in following legal requirements.
5. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, quashing the reassessment notice, the order under section 144/147, and the consequential actions. The court directed the concerned authorities to file a report within eight weeks and listed the case for compliance on a specific date.

This detailed analysis highlights the issues regarding the validity of the assessment order, proper service of notice, and compliance with legal procedures, leading to the judgment in favor of the assessee based on the failure of the Assessing Officer to adhere to the prescribed rules.

---