AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....litha Nagar, Visakhapatnam, which was registered vide document No. 428/2007 on 15/02/2007 for a consideration of Rs. 50 lakhs, whose SRO value was Rs. 78,30,000/-. The Assessing Officer has issued a letter dated 31/01/2014 to the assessee seeking information as to whether capital gains was offered on the above transaction under the provisions of section 50C of the Act. As there was no response, the Assessing Officer has initiated proceedings under section 147 and approval was sought from the Addl. CIT for issuance of notice under section 148. The Addl. CIT has given his approval on 14/03/2014. Thereafter, notice dated 14/03/2013 was issued. There is a typo error in the date mentioned in the said notice as it ought to have been 14/03/2014. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that as the service of notice by affixture was done at the wrong address, therefore the impugned proceedings initiated under section 147 was not valid and required to be quashed. According to the assessee, the service of affixture was done at D.No. 49-57-14/3, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam and submitted that assessee's address is at D.No.45-57-14/3, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions made by the assessee, gave a categorical finding that as per the sale document and also the household card show the address of the assessee to be at D.No. 45-57-14/3 and notice affixture at D.No. 49-57-14/3 there is no nexus to the assessee and held that the notice is not served to the assessee and therefore impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nagar, Visakhapatnam. The contention of the assessee is that the address of the assessee is at D.No. 45-57-14/3 and not at D.No. 49-57-14/3. The ld. CIT(A) has considered the contention of the assessee and verified the sale document and household card of the assessee, held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 148 was not served on the assessee. As per the established procedure, the impugned assessment is not in accordance with law and the same is set aside. As per the assessment order, the address of the assessee is at D.No. 45-57-14/3, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. The ld.CIT(A) has also considered that the Assessing Officer has sent the initial letter on 31/01/2014 to the address at D.No. 45-57-14/3, Narasimha ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as contended that as the service by affixture was done at the wrong address there was no valid service and therefore the impugned proceedings initiated u/s.147 was not valid and required to be quashed. The perusal of the record show that the impugned notice u/s.158 bearing date 14.03.2013 (correct date would be 14.03.2014) was addressed to Sri/ Smt, Ghatty Venkata Rajya Seshasri w/o. G. Sudhakar, D.No.49-57-14/3, Narasimhanagar, Visakhapatnam. The said notice was purportedly served by affixture at the above address stated in the notice. The ITI in his report dated 16.03.2014 had stated that he visited the above address on 14.03.2014, 1.03.2014 & 16.03.2014, and as the assessee was not available, the impugned notice was affixed on the front ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under s.34; and if a valid notice is not issued as required, proceedings taken by the ITO in pursuance of an invalid notice and consequent orders of reassessment passed by him would be void and Inoperative. The notice prescribed by s.34 cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement; it Is only if the said notice is served on the assessee as required that the ITO would be justified in taking proceedings against him. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid then the validity of the proceedings taken by the ITO without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void - CIT vs. Ramsukh Mothilalal (1955) 27 ITR 54 and R.K. Das & Co. vs....