TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1272
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al on the basis of service of notice. The Assessing Officer observed that the return declaring the income of Rs. 58,910/- was filed though e-filing on 31/10/2007 after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A amounting to Rs. 13,74,675/- on the gross total income of Rs. 14,33,584/-. The case was selected for scrutiny as per CASS and accordingly notice U/s 143(2 ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) was issued on 25/09/2008 by the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh fixing the case for hearing on 20/10/2008 at Chandigarh office. The above notice could not be served in the given address, thus as per order under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908) dated 26/09/2009, the Income Tax Inspector and notice server was authorized to affix a copy of notice U/s 143(2) and notice U/s 142(1) on the conspicuous part of the premises where the assessee was residing or last known address. The above said notices were affixed in front of the premises before the two witnesses on 26/09/2008. Subsequently, the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh was noticed that the address of the assessee had been changed from Chandigarh to Kota. Thus, the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh issued another not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2009 at Chandigarh address and later on sent by the registered post on 30/09/2009 to the Kota address by the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh was a valid service and was in time. Accordingly, the learned Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim that notice U/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued within the time prescribed under the law. Thereafter, various notices issued to the assessee, required details not furnished even his mother also appeared before the Assessing Officer, Kota. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer decided to complete the assessment proceedings U/s 144 of the Act. He also issued penalty notice U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for non compliance of the notices. This show cause notice could not be served as the assessee was not there and the family members refused to accept the letter as per noting of the notice server. A copy of the above letter was sent by registered post, which was also unserved by the postal department and returned back with the remark that Again show cause notice U/s 142(1) issued by the office letter dated 08/12/2009 fixing the case for hearing on 12/12/2009, which was affixed by the Inspector and notice server of this office as per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) concluded that jurisdiction to assess the assessee lies with ITO, Ward 1(2), Kota and the notice issued at Chandigarh address were not correctly issued. Apparently, the return filed at Chandigarh appears to have been filed by someone else. The ITO was advised to take suitable corrective action to book the guilty. Further he held that return filed for A.Y. 2007-08, which was picked up for scrutiny was filed through e-filing and the address given therein was of Kota. It has been held that first notice issued and served on the assessee was notice dated 30th September, 2008, which was served on the assessee on 09/10/2008 and same was barred by limitation. Accordingly, he declared the order of the Assessing Officer ab-initio void and quashed. 4. Now the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. The learned D.R. contended that given address on e-filing return was with the I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Chandigarh, who had issued first notice on 25/09/2008, which could not be served, therefore, he again issued notice on 26/09/2008, which was served by affixture under the Code of Civil Procedure on 26/09/2008 through Ward Inspector and notice server before two witnesses. Thereafter, he also sent a notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived at to the expression "serve" appearing in section 143(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee's petition was dismissed. Further it is argued that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Amarjit Singh Tut Vs. Union of India 347 ITR 585 has held that the amendment made in Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act is procedural and for A.Y. 2007-08, the notice issued within 12 months from the date of return is valid notice for A.Y. 2007-08. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the order of the learned CIT(A). 6. At the outset, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, we have considered all the submissions made before the lower authorities by the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. By affixture notice was served on the given address of the assessee on 26/09/2008. Even the assessee himself admitted that he had received notice dated 30/09/2008 on 09/10/2008, which is within 12 months from the date of return filed i.e. 31/10/2007. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Amarjit Singh Tut (supra) has held that statute of limitation is a procedural statute and is applicable....