TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 956
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alidity of 148 proceedings and the consequential assessment order pursuant to reopening stating that the mandatory requirement of service of notice u/s 148 is not followed thereby vitiating the entire reassessment proceedings. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are as under: 1. "That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the impugned reassessment order passed by Ld.AO that too without assuming jurisdiction as per law and without complying with mandatory conditions u/s 147 to 151 as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That in any case and in any view, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld.AO in framing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferring to page 23 of the Paper Book, which is the Form for recording reasons for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 and for obtaining the approval of the Pr. CIT the Ld. Counsel submits that even in this Form the AO stated the address as resident of Ghookna, Ghaziabad. Further the column against permanent account number was shown as not available. Referring to page 1 to 22 of the paper book the Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee has filed return for the AY 2015-16 on 29.03.2016 which clearly mentioned the address of the assessee as 506-A, Tyagi Market, Meerut Road, Village Ghookna, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201011. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the return for the assessment year under consideration i.e., AY 2009-10 was fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Avtar Singh (P&H) (HC), 219 CTR 588 * CIT vs. Eqbal Singh Sindhana 304 ITR 177 (Delhi) * ACIT vs. Vindhya Talylinks Ltd. 107 TTJ 149 (JAB)(TM) * CIT vs. Hotline International (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 333 (Del) * CIT vs. Laxmi Narain 168 Taxman 128 (P&H) (HC) * Ram Singh Mathur vs. ITO, ITA 834/2005, date of order 21.09.2007 (Delhi ITAT) * Venkat Naicken & Anr. vs. ITO, 242 ITR 141 (Madras High Court) The Ld. Counsel also placed reliance on the decision of Delhi Bench, SMC in the case of Akhtar Khan Vs. ITO, ITA No. 138/Del/2008 dated 27.04.2022. 7. The Ld. DR at the time of hearing produced the original records before me and fairly submits that the proof of service of notice u/s 148 is not traceable from the record. 8. Heard rival su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt, in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi vs. ITO (supra), in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in s. 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being ss. 147, 148 and 149, in the 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out between the "issue of notice" and "service of notice" under the 1961 Act. Sec. 149 prescribes the period of limitation. It categorically prescribes that no notice under s. 148 shall be issued after the prescribed limitation has lapsed. Sec. 148(1) provides for service of notice as a condition precedent to making the order of assessment. Once a notice is is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....118, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'new address'). Return for the assessment year 2003-04 was also filed on 28,11.2003, i.e. before the issue of the aforesaid notice on 29.1.2004, showing the new address. However, not a single communication was sent at that address and further steps for serving the notice under Section 148 of the Act were also taken showing the old address. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), in these circumstances, held that no valid notice was served upon the assessee under Section 148 of the Act. The entire discussion in this behalf, in appeal, is summarized by the ITAT in para 8 of its order, relevant portion whereof makes the following reading:- We have carefully considered the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the old address. Further, in the letter dated 20.11.2004 written to the Assessing Officer the assessee has denied service of the notice under section 148. Hence even if s scope for drawing a presumption, the assessee has come before the Assessing Officer and denied service. The notice served by affixture is also not valid service because it was done at the old address, which is not the last-known address, as the new address has already been intimated to the department in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2003-04 and that is the last-known address. Ld. Counsel for the Revenue argued that no doubt in the return filed on 28.11.2003 for the assessment year 2003-04, on the first page new address is given, the assessee had als....