TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent issued was defective or invalid. 2. We have heard Shri P.K.R. Menon, learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue and Shri P. Balakrishnan learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee. 3. The facts leading to the controversy are as follows :- The respondent assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged in liquor business. However, since abkari licence, with which the business was carried on by the firm, was issued in the name of one of the partners, the firm was assessed as an AOP by virtue of two Full Bench decisions of this Court. Consequently, block assessment made after search was on the respondent assessee. Against assessment as an Association of Persons (AOP), there is no dispute on the status assigned to the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an additional ground in the appeal before the Tribunal contending that Annexure D notice is invalid, and so much so assessment made based on the same is also invalid. The Tribunal, by mainly relying on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in P.N. Sasikumar v. CIT [1988] 170 ITR 801, cancelled the assessment for the reason that Annexure D notice was issued under section 158BD and not under section 158C read with section 158BD, and against this order of the Tribunal, separate appeals were filed by the revenue raising the question as to whether the Tribunal is right in holding that Annexure D notice is invalid and consequently the assessment also is invalid. 4. Admittedly search was made in the premises of one Mr. Prakash, who is one ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck assessment under sections 158BC and 158BD. Section 158BD authorises the Department to assess a person other than the searched person based on materials recovered during search. In this case search was made in the premises of one Mr. Prasad, who is one of the partners and one of the members of the respondent AOP. When evidence was recovered about the undisclosed income earned by the respondent assessee during the course of search in the premises of one of the members of the AOP, assessment has to be made on respondent under section 158BD read with section 158BC. The assessee also does not dispute this position. But the only question raised is whether the notice issued by the Department based on which the block assessment was completed is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e filed by the assessee for assessment under section 158BC. While the learned counsel for the assessee specifically referred to section 282(2)(c) and contended that there is failure in serving notice as mentioned above, learned senior counsel for the revenue relied on section 292B and contended that non-mentioning of section 158BC along with section 158BD in Annexure D notice will not invalidate the notice based on which the assessment was completed. Sections 282(2)(c) and 292B are extracted hereunder :- "282. Service of notice generally.-(1) A notice or requisition under this Act may be served on the person therein named either by post or as if it were a summons issued by a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. In our view, proof of the detailed procedure adopted for service of notice under sub-section (2) of section 282 is required to be enquired into only when the assessee complains non-receipt of notice. In other words, when notice issued is accepted by the assessee and return is filed in terms of the notice, the assessee cannot contend that there is no service of notice in terms of the section. Besides the above, what we find is that Annexure D notice is a notice prescribed under Rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules and in the said notice what is called for is return in the prescribed format i.e., in Form 2B, which is for making block assessment under section 158BC. So much so, even though the Assessing Officer has corrected section "158BC" to sectio....