TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 'Act'). 2. The effective grounds raised by the assessee are as under: "1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld A.O. has erred in law in making addition of Rs. 1,52.27,440/- in the case of assessee on protective basis when whole of the transaction in the bank accounts have been done by Shri Atam Parkash, immigration agent. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of case the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in confirming the order u/s 144 passed by the assessing officer when notice u/s 148 issued by A.O. was not sent to the assessee on his PAN data base address before the specified date i.e. 31/03/2017. 3. That the finding of Ld CIT(A) is misplaced one that assessee has refused to take the notice. The assessee never resi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gration agent it is seen after cash deposit in the bank account amount was immediately transferred to the trading concerns. At the most protective income in the case of assessee shall be worked out @ 5% as provided in section 44AF of the I.T. Act. The income of the assessee will work out to Rs. 13,38,406/-. 3. As is evident from the above grounds the assessee has raised both legal grounds challenging the validity of the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act as well as on merits challenging the addition made of Rs. 1,52,27,440/- on account of cash found deposited in the bank account of the assessee. 4. Brief facts relating to the case are that the Assessing Officer (AO) consequent to information that the assessee had deposited Rs. 1,61,35,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal before the Ld.CIT(A) challenging the validity of the assessment framed on the ground that the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served on him. Ground challenging the merits of the addition made were also raised. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed all the grounds raised by the assessee and upheld the order of the AO. 6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee has now come up in appeal before us. 7. Taking up first the legal grounds raised in Ground No.2,3,4 & 6 the solitary argument raised before us was that the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act was invalid in the absence of service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the notice was neither served through speed post, nor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se is valid service. The Ld AO has further in my considered view dealt with the objections of the appellant with regards to the non-service of notice in para 7 of the order." 9. To verify the fact of service of notice the assessment records were called for. From the records it was noticed that the Sr. DR had sought information of service of notice from the concerned AO vide letter dated 08.02.2021. In response to the same due reply was filed by the AO to the Sr.DR vide letter dated 01.03.2021. 10. On going through the assessment records alongwith the contents of the letter of the AO placing on record the necessary facts relating to the service of notice, the facts which emanate are that; i) the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee had refused to take the notice". 11. The facts which emanate from the assessment records therefore are that notice u/s 148 of the Act served by Speed Post was returned back unserved, there is no evidence of service of notice by affixture and the notice server had only carried a letter addressed to the assessee which he had refused to take and no notice u/s 148 of the Act was served by the notice server. 12. Therefore, it is clear that there was no valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act in the present case. The finding of the Ld.CIT(A) that the notices served through Speed Post and affixture were at the address as per PAN Database and, therefore, tantamounted to valid service, is of no assistance to the Revenue since admittedly th....