2016 (6) TMI 564

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessment by the respondent-Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2008-09. The sole ground pressed in service is of non-service of notice of re-opening. 3. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner had filed return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 which was scrutinized before the Assessing Officer passed a scrutiny assessment order. To re-open such assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice dated 24.03.2015. As per the petitioner, such notice was never served on the petitioner within the time envisaged under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuance and service of such notice. 4. Case of the petitioner is that, the department never served the notice as per rules. The petitioner would point out that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, to ensure proper service through postal department, notice was also dispatched through post on 26.03.2015 at the address of the assessee, contained in his PAN card, which was returned back by the postal department on 31.03.2015 with remarks "left". 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we notice that the department has not been able to point out, in what manner said Krishna Yadav, the person who supposed to have received the notice on 27.03.2015, had any authority to do so for and on behalf of the petitioner. It is not stated that Krishna Yadav was an authorized agent of the petitioner, authorized to receive such communication and notice. To this limited extent, therefore, the att....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....z. Krishna Yadav, who received it on 27.03.2015, the department had also dispatched the notice through the postal department on 26.03.2015 which was returned by the department on 31.03.2015 with the remarks "left". Regarding the address, it was pointed out that the same was taken from the PAN card of the petitioner. 11. In response to such stand of the department, in the affidavit-in- rejoinder the petitioner did not elaborate on the question of wrong address in the postal dispatch instead, contended that the endorsement "left" is totally incorrect since the petitioner had received various communications including from that of the department at the said address of 17, Haveli Appartments, Panchwati Park Society, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad. 12....