TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have any reason to belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment due to omission or failure on the part of the assessee. (c) As no notice under s. 148 has ever been served upon the assessee." 4. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that ground No. 1 being a preliminary ground, should be adjudicated first. In the alternative, he also made submissions on the remaining ground on merit. 5. The learned Departmental Representative justified the order of the learned CIT(A) for his findings on the issue involved in ground No. 1 and also on merits. 6. After hearing the parties and after going through the entire material on record, including the case law, to which reference was made by the learned representatives of the parties, we consider it proper to adjudicate ground No. 1 which has been reproduced above. 7. The facts concerning this ground, as found from the assessment order and the order of learned CIT(A), are as under. 8. The assessee was a public limited company, having its registered office at Delhi. Return for asst. yr. 1993-94 was filed by it before the Asstt. CIT, Company Circle 3(2), New D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... several objections that notice under s. 148 was not served upon the assessee. In this regard specific objections were also taken during assessment proceedings. The Asstt. CIT, Company Ward 3(2), New Delhi, completed the assessment under s. 143(3) on 22nd March, 2001, for asst. yr. 1995-96. So far as the validity of. issuance of notice under s. 148 by the ITO, Bulandshahar, is concerned, the AO justified the same by assigning following reasons: "1. That the assessee-company has filed the return for asst. yrs. 1994-95 and 1995-96 with the ITO Ward-1, Bulandshahar. 2. That the assessee-company vide its letter dt. 7th April, 1995, has stated that since the company has passed the resolution for shifting the registered office of the company from Delhi to Sikandrabad, hence it has filed the return for asst. yr.1994-95 (details of that letter were discussed above). 3. That the assessee-company has filed an application for a certificate under s. 230A(1) of the IT Act, 1961 on 12th May, 1997, with the ITO Ward-1, Bulandshahar, and the same was given to the assessee-company on 28th May, 1997." 13. Thus, the AO rejected the plea of the assessee by observing as un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nov., 2001, and is available at p. 136 of the paper book. 16. The assessee raised objections regarding validity of the notice issued under s. 148. In its letter dt. 13th Nov., 2001, the assessee took specific plea that the notice issued under s. 148 for asst. yr. 1995-96 was never served upon any directors of the assessee-company nor any person authorized to receive such notice and, therefore, the assessee did not file any return in response to notice under s. 148. It was also mentioned in para 8 of the aforesaid letter that the ITO, Bulandshahar, also issued notice under s. 143(2)/142(1) on 8th Feb., 2001, for asst. yr. 1995-96 and as a result of this notice the assessee-company came to know about the reassessment proceedings under s. 148. It was. further mentioned that the assessee filed letter dt. 16th Feb., 2001, with which it had also filed copy of the IT returns filed by it before the AO, Delhi, along with the assessment order for asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97 and on that basis the ITO. Bulandshahar, dropped the proceedings for asst. yr. 1996-97. 17. In para 9 of the said letter it was further pleaded that the learned Asstt. CIT, New Delhi, was not justified in relyin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....return in Delhi, it decided to file its return for asst. yr. 199495 in Bulandshahar even though the permission from the Company Law Board came later. The next year it filed its return in Delhi even though it had informed ITO about shifting of regd. office to Sikandrabad and approval of Company Law Board had come through. In both years neither did it bother to inform any of the offices where it had filed its return for the relevant assessment year nor had it put in any application for transfer of records. In a situation like this it is difficult for an AO to know where the return has been filed. The AO in Bulandshahar issued notices under s. 148 for asst. yrs. 1995-96 and 1996-97. The assessee claims that the notices under s. 148 were not served upon it. The AO has confirmed that the notice dt. 11th Sept., 1998, was served upon Shri Ajay Pratap Singh at the factory premise of the assessee on 18th Feb., 1998. The notices issued by the AO at Bulandshahar under ss. 143(2) and 142(1) were served upon Sh. Rajiv Aggarwal on 10th Feb., 2001. The assessee then contended that since its returns were being filed in Delhi, the proceedings should be transferred there. It is evident that the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT Act, in the case of the assessee, the notice is to be addressed to the principal office of the company. The provisions of s. 282 are as under: 282. "Service of notice generally-(1) A notice or requisition under this Act may be served on the person under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). (2) Any such notice or requisition may be addressed- (a) ...... (b) In the case of a local authority or company, to the principal officer thereof; (c)..... (d) ...." 22. As the provision contained under sub-s. (2) of s. 282 is specific provision, the mode of service has to be adhered to in accordance with this provision. In the case of the present assessee, the notice was addressed at the following address: "M/s Sudev Industries Ltd., A-74/142, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar" 23. The principal office of the company was at, "150, Sarai Julena,Okhla Road, Opposite Hotel Sofital Surya, New Delhi". Various notices have been issued at this address by the AO of New Delhi as well as by the AO of Bulandshahar. A notice dt. 8th Feb., 2001, which is issued under s. 143(2) of the I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....47 of the IT Act. While holding so, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has followed the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.K. Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 62 CTR (SC) 17 : (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC). It may also be pointed out that the assessee has challenged the service of notice by filing affidavit of Shri Rajiv Aggarwal, director of the assessee-company. A copy of this affidavit is available at p. 136. In this affidavit Shri Aggarwal has deposed as under: "That neither myself nor any director or any other authorised person has received notice issued under s. 148 dt. 11th Sept., 1998, of the Act issued by ITO, Bulandshahar for asst. yr. 1995-96." 26. The above affidavit remained uncontroverted as no counter-affidavit has been filed by the Department to show that Shri Rajiv Agarwal or any other director or authorized person received the notice. 27. In the case of Venkat Naicken Trust & Anr. VS. ITO & Anr. (2001) 166 CTR (Mad) 461 : (2000) 242 ITR 141 (Mad), the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that when the assessee pleads that the assessee has not been properly served with any notice, it is for the Department to place the ....