Assessment Invalidated Due to Improper Notice Service; Tribunal Rules in Favor of Assessee, Rendering Interest Levy Moot.

The Tribunal quashed the assessment due to improper service of notice under sections 147/148, as it was served on an unauthorized person, violating sections 282 and 283(2). Consequently, the assessment was deemed without jurisdiction. Additionally, the issue of interest levy under sections 139(8) and 215/217 was rendered moot, as the assessment was invalidated. The Tribunal allowed all appeals in favor of the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of service of notice u/s 147/148.
2. Levy of interest u/s 139(8) and 215/217.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Service of Notice u/s 147/148

The assessee firm, consisting of two partners, was dissolved following a search and seizure operation. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148, which was served on the son of a retired partner. The assessee argued that the notice was invalid as it was not served on a proper person as required by section 283(2). The CIT(A) set aside the assessment but did not quash it, prompting the assessee to appeal.

The Tribunal examined the legal provisions and precedents, emphasizing that service of notice must be on a partner or authorized person as per section 282 and 283(2). The Tribunal cited several cases, including Kanhaya Lal Surinder Kumar v. Assessing Officer and Narwana Motor Tpt. Co. v. ITO, which supported the view that service on a non-partner is invalid. The Tribunal concluded that the notice was not properly served, rendering the assessment without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the assessment, disagreeing with the CIT(A)'s decision to merely set it aside.

Issue 2: Levy of Interest u/s 139(8) and 215/217

The assessee challenged the levy of interest u/s 139(8) and 215/217. Since the Tribunal quashed the assessment due to improper service of notice, the question of interest levy became moot. The Tribunal allowed this ground in favor of the assessee.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed all three appeals, quashing the assessment due to improper service of notice and rendering the issue of interest levy irrelevant.

---