TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion conducted by DRI, Mumbai, excel sheet was found from the possession of Zaver Cyprus Dadlani, wherein it was categorically mentioned that sale proceeds of the property sold were also in cash and mot recorded in the sale deeds 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition on account of undisclosed capital pain without appreciating the fact that both M's. Saturn Advisory Services Pvt. Lad and Ms. Merino Realtors Pvt. Ltd. were purchasers, whereas the assessee is seller, therefore the decision in the case of purchasers could not be applied in the case of seller. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that seized documents have an evidentiary value. From the seized documents it is seen that amount state....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....used the material available on record. Notice u/s 148 is not a valid notice. 5. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that AO passed order u/s 147/144 of the Act dated 24.03.2014 without a valid notice u/s 148 of the Act and this is evident from copy of Notice u/s 148 (PB 2 Pg. 102-104) wherein address of the assessee is mentioned as "Village & P.O., New Delhi-110068" , whereas the correct address of the assessee is "K-259A, High Gate Mansion, Maidan Garhi Road, Chattarpur Enclave, Phase-1, New Delhi". 6. It is settled position in law that valid notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement must be complied with this contention of assessee is supported by Delhi High court judgment in the case of Commissioner of I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such assumption because of the categorical stand of the assessee that he had not received the notice. The burden was entirely upon the Revenue to show that the notice was des-patched to the correct address, it is only then that such a presumption could have been made. But learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to show that the envelope containing the notice was correctly addressed. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept this contention of learned counsel for the Revenue. 12. It was finally contended that the assessee presented himself in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. However, as we have noted above, the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer in response to a notice under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed: and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under Section 139." 9. It is settled position in law that service of notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement must be complied with and the onus to prove the service of notice lies upon the Revenue and this contention of assessee is supported by the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chetan Gupta [(2016) 382 ITR 613] vide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the requirement of effecting proper service of notice on the Assessee under Section 148 of the Act. (vi) Reassessment proceedings finalized by an AO without effecting proper service of notice on the Assessee under Section 148(1) of the Act are invalid and liable to be quashed. (vi) Section 292 BB is prospective. In any event the Assessee in the present case, having raised an objection regarding the failure by the Revenue to effect service of notice upon him, the main part of Section 292 BB is not attracted. 47. On the facts of the present case, the Court finds that the ITAT was right in its conclusion that since no proper service of notice had been effected under Section 148 (1) of the Act on the Assessee, the reassessment proceedin....