TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a was not justified to uphold the very initiation of proceedings u/s 148. ii. That the notice u/s 148 was not served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as such the proceedings initiated are void ab-initio and deserves to be quashed. iii. That the ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in quashing the assessment as while framing assessment, principles of natural justice were grossly violated. iv. That ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in not providing the appellant with the opportunity to cross examine the persons on the basis of whose statement notice u/s 148 has been issued and the assessment has been framed, it is both had in law against the principal of natural justice. v. That the ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in uphol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llage Barkandi which he failed to furnish. The objection of the AR of the appellant is rejected." 5. The issue is as to whether the notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act was, in fact, served on the assessee or not. 6. As per the assessment order, such a notice was issued on 24.2.2012, which was duly served on the assessee on 1.3.2012. According to the order under appeal (para 2 at page 9 of the impugned order),the notice u/s 148 was received by Sh. Harcharan Singh, brother of the assessee, on 1.3.2012 in village Barkandi. The stand taken by the assessee remains, as before the ld. CIT(A), that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was served either on the assessee, or on any person authorized by the assessee. Reliance has been placed on the following case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 12 of Order V of the C.P.C, wherever it is practicable, service shall be made on the defendant in person, unless he has an agent empowered to accept service, in which case, service on such agent shall be sufficient. 9. In accordance with Rules 13 and 14 of Order V of the C.P.C, it is only if a summons is accepted by a person who is authorized to do so, that the defendant can be said to have received the summons, or that service is good service. 10. In this case, it remains undisputed, as noted by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served on the brother of the assessee and not on the assessee in person. Now, this service has been sought to be justified by seeking refuge of the alleged fact that lat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ything on record to establish that the brother of the assessee, namely Harcharan Singh, had been authorised by the assessee to accept service of notice on behalf of the assessee. Harcharan Singh, brother of the assessee, also not been shown to be an agent of the assessee, entitled to receive the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 13. In these facts, it cannot be held that receipt of the notice u/s 148 of the Act by Harcharan Singh, brother of the assessee, amounted to service of notice on the assessee, irrespective of the fact that the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Act had been challenged in appeal by the assessee within limitation. 14. In " the Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma", 311 ITR 235 (Delhi), it has be....