TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Design tools and computer software. The Petitioner was initially operating from the premises situated at 204-206, Tolstoy House, 15, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi till 1st February, 2010. Thereafter the Petitioner shifted to D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. 3. The Petitioner states that new address was updated in the PAN database which was duly recorded. All communications were thereafter received by the Petitioner from the Respondents at the new address. At page 72 of the paper book, the Petitioner has listed out all the communications received by it at the new address beginning with a notice dated 31st August, 2010 under Section 143(2) of the Act for AY 2009-10 and ending with a notice dated 22nd April, 2014 issued to it under Section 221 of the Act. 4. For the AY 2009-10, the Petitioner filed its return of income on 30th September, 2009 declaring income of Rs. 36,95,90,380/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act on 31st August, 2010 is issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) (Respondent No. 1) at the changed address of the Petitioner. A further notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 18th February....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act read with Section 144(C)(3) of the Act. 9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the Petitioner opted to file an appeal before the CIT(A) and therefore was awaiting the passing of the final assessment order. In other words, the Assessee did not file an acceptance of the variations with the AO within 30 days of receiving the draft assessment order. Therefore, in terms of Section 144(C)(4) read with Section 144(C)(3) of the Act with the limitation for filing objections before the DRP having expired on 22nd April, 2013, the AO had to necessarily pass the final assessment order by 31st May, 2013. 10. The Petitioner's case is that it did not receive the final assessment order passed by the AO at the changed address. 11. In the meanwhile, on 19th June 2013, the DCIT issued a notice to the Petitioner under Section 221(1) of the Act seeking to impose penalty under Section 221(1) and recover the demand for the AY 2008-09 and 2003-04. That notice did not mention any demand arising out of assessment order for AY 2009-10. This notice dated 19th June 2013 was received by the Petitioner at its changed address. 12. Subsequently, on 22nd April, 2014 the petitioner received a no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sheet entry" 15. It is stated thereafter several attempts made by the Petitioner to inspect the file and obtain the information were unsuccessful. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the reliefs aforementioned. 16. On 29th May, 2014 while directing notice in the writ petition, the Court passed the following order in the application CM. No. 7411/2014: "The petitioner's grievance is that the respondents are seeking to enforce tax demands and penalty for AY 2009- 10. It is contended that the petitioner had given sufficient intimation to the respondent/revenue about the change of address and that the orders, alleged to have been made on the basis of the draft assessment orders, are without jurisdiction since no intimation was received, thus depriving the petitioner of the right to approach the CIT (A). Counsel contends that, likewise, the penalty order too was sought to be finalized under Section 271 without notice at the new address. Respondents are directed to produce Assessing Officer's records on the next date of hearing. In the meanwhile, the demands which are the subject matter of the present petition are he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21 on the ground that the same has been passed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in section 144C(4) of the Act interpolating dates and intentionally issuing it at the old address of the Petitioner company in order to cover up the limitation. The Respondents are not providing the proof of dispatch and service of the said orders and notices, in spite of asking for the same specifically. Thus the impugned orders and notice deserved to be quashed on this ground alone. xxxx xxxx xxxxx 18. Thus, the final assessment order had to be passed within one month from the end of the month in which the acceptance of the draft order is received or within one month when the limitation for filing objections before DRP expired. In the present case no such assessment order was passed by the Respondents which is apparent from the fact that the impugned orders and notices which are issued at the old address of the Petitioner while all other communications were addressed to the current address of the Petitioner which clearly evidences that the said orders were not passed within the limitation prescribed and now have been interpolated to cover the deficiency by purportedly sending it to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der, in fact, was not despatched to the Petitioner. That brings up another issue. It is not understood why the address shown in the final assessment is the old address of the Petitioner when in fact the Department already had with it the changed address. All notices and orders issued to the Petitioner from 31st August, 2010 were sent to the changed address. This further raises doubt as to whether the final assessment order was, in fact, passed on 22nd April 2013. Further, when the draft assessment order was sent to the changed address of the Petitioner, there was no reason why the final assessment order should mention the old address and not the changed address. 23. In the above circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that the Department has failed to prove even on a preponderance of probabilities that the final assessment order was passed on the date written by hand therein i.e., 22nd April 2013. 24. Mr Shivpuri sought to urge that the requirement of the law as far as Section 144(C)(4) of the Act was only that the final assessment order should be passed within one month from the end of the month in which the period for filing of objections under Section 144(C) would ....