TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order dated 21.05.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No.281 (ASR)/2008. The questions of law read as under: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in not deciding the case on merits and without considering that the assessee had made an incorrect claim of deduction under Section 80-O of the I.T.Act, 1961 and merely dismissing the appeal on technical grounds? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of Ld. CIT (A), who has quashed the assessment proceedings on merely the plea that the service of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection to the service of notice under Section 148. It is made clear that notice under Section 148 was duly served by affixture on 29.03.2003 on the last known address of the assessee at Phagwara in the presence of two witnesses. Copy of which was also sent by post on 31.03.2003. Moreover, issuance of notice under Section 148 within the stipulated period is compulsory and not service although, the service of notice under Section 148 has also been made within the period. Thus, the objection raised by the assessee is not accepted." In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax vide its order dated 31.01.2008 held that in view of non-service of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the reassessment is invalid. It is the said order, which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to distinguish the judgments referred and relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court in V.R.A. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. case (supra). Reliance is also placed upon another Division Bench judgment of this Court in ITA No.7 of 2010 titled "Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Vs.Sh. Naveen Chander" decided on 08.02.2010, wherein the service of notice by affixation was found to be unjustified. At this stage, the questions of law, which require our consideration, are question Nos.2 & 3, as reproduced above. It is not disputed that the notice issued on 28.03.2003 was within the period of limitation. The fact such notice was issued is not in dispute inasmuch as notices under registered post were sent on 31.03.2003 as well i.e. again within the....