Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the reassessment initiated under section 148 was valid when service of notice was disputed and it was not shown that the notice had been served on the assessee or on an authorised agent.
Analysis: The assessee consistently objected that no notice under section 148 had been served on it before the prescribed date and that the alleged recipient was neither a partner nor an employee nor an authorised person. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not deal with this objection in the reassessment order and that the first appellate authority proceeded only on the basis that the notice had been served on a person who merely appeared to be a representative. Referring to section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the service requirements under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Tribunal held that valid service must be on the assessee or on a person duly authorised to accept service, which was not proved on the record.
Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was not proved to have been validly served, the reopening was invalid, and the reassessment order was cancelled in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment cannot be sustained unless service of notice under section 148 is proved in accordance with section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the applicable rules of service, including service on an authorised recipient.