AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Municipal No.5-1-153/3, admeasuring 93.33 Sq. Yds., situated at Jambagh, Hyderabad for a consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs on 04-07-2009, vide document No.1559/2009. They also sold the Southern portion of the house property, bearing Municipal No.5-1-153/3, admeasuring 93.33 Sq. Yds., for a consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs, vide document No.1560/2009, dt.04-07-2009. Thus, the total sale consideration as per two sale deeds was Rs.30 Lakhs, whereas the SRD value of the property was Rs.52,92,480/-. Since the assessees did not offer the capital gains to tax for the AY.2010- 11, the assessment was re-opened by issuance of a notice u/s.148 of the Act, dt.31-03-2017 to the address mentioned in the sale deeds executed by the assessees. The envelop containi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same were not served on the assessees and also on merits. The CIT(A), however, dismissed both the appeals, and the assessee's are in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal. For the sake of convenience andready reference, the grounds raised in ITA No.56/Hyd/2019 are reproduced hereunder: "Pertaining to validity of Reassessment Order: tax effect: 3,47,572/- 1) That the Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the Order passed u/s 143(3) rws 144 rws 147 without serving Notice issued u/s 148 is a valid Order. 2) That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that Reassessment Order passed without service of Notice issued u/s 148 is saved by provisions of Section 292B. 3) That the provisions of Section 292B appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessees' filed their returns of income for the AY.2010-11 on 15-09-2010, giving the address they were residing in at that point of time in the returns of income. He submitted that subsequently, assessees' have changed their address and had also filed their returns of income for the AY.2012-13 onwards with the new address and there was also correspondence from the department at the new address vide letters dt.01-09-2014 and 06-03-2017. Thus, it is submitted that the Assessing Officer had the knowledge of change of address and also had known the correct address, but, for the reasons best known to him, the notices were sent to the old address after the period of limitation and therefore, they were clearly not served on the assessees.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act. (iii) The decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mintu Kalita [253 ITR 334] (Gau), wherein it was held that - after considering that the notice u/s. 148 was not served on the assessee, it was held that it is a condition precedent to initiation of proceedings for the assessment u/s.147 and hence where there is no evidence of service of notice, that re-assessment is not valid. (iv) The decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Veena Devi Karnani Vs. ITO [410 ITR 23] (Del), wherein in similar facts it was held that "where the re-assessment notices were served on the other address inspite of intimation of changed address, the re-assessment proceedings are not valid and the reliance upon Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orton Motors [275 ITR 595] (P&H) 4. Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below to submit that the department has taken steps to serve the notice on the assessee and since the notice was un-served, it was served by affixture at the address given by the assessees in their returns of income and therefore the notices are validly served. 5. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, we find that the transaction of sale of property has taken place in the Financial Year 2009-10 and though the assessees have filed their returns of income, they did not offer the capital gains to tax. The Assessing Officer, therefore, could have re-opened the assessment by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act withi....