TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 2059
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n holding the amount of Rs. 6,53,00,957/- as undisclosed turnover and further erred in holding the net profit @5% of the alleged undisclosed turnover simply following the order of the predecessor for the AY 2005-06. 4. That the appellant craves liberty to add, alter, vary or amend any ground of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee Company was incorporated on 21.3.1990 and was engaged in the business of providing engineering consultancy and contract work. Assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 36,895/-. The AO issued notices u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") and u/s. 142(1) of the Act and served unto the assessee. In response to the same, the AR of the Assessee has not accepted the contention of the Assessee and held that the assessee was not in a position to rebuild the books of accounts and requested that the best judgement u/s. 144 of the Act may be resorted to. The AO has also given the notice to the assessee asking why the best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act should be not be completed by presuming 5% of the total turnover. In response to the same, Assessee contended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi - 110 092' was communicated by the assessee on 10.11.2008 and copy of letter dated 10.11.2008 and order sheet of the assessment record for the AY 2006-07 evidencing that the Power of Attorney was submitted on 20.11.2008 which is attached with Paper Book at page no. 26-27. It was further submitted that, all the communications addressed to the company, including service of notices from CIT (A) office are regularly served upon the company at this very address. In view of this conclusive evidences the service of notice dated 24.9.2009 which is claimed to be served on 25.9.2008 when address when the address itself was furnished on 10.11.2008 prima facie appears to be is a concocted piece of evidence which can be relied upon. It was further submitted that the service of the third notice dated 25.9.2008 of hearing dated 29.9.2018 which is claimed to be served by affixture on 25.9.2008 at 311, D-5, Avadh Complex Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110 092 (ITR address) is also unreliable piece of evidence for the reason that once the service of the second notice dated 24.9.2008 was completed by affixture on 25.9.2008 at the address WB-12B, Gali No. 1, School Block, Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 21.5.2009 in the case of DCIT vs. KG Siknghania. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and stated that AO has served the assessee according to law and stated that the case law cited by the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee are not applicable in the case of the assessee. Therefore, he requested that the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the orders passed by the revenue authorities alongwith the arguments advanced by both the parties and the case laws cited before us and the Paper Book filed by the Assessee. We find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessment was completed without service of statutory notice issued u/s. 143(2) of the At within the limitation period because the first notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 16.9.2018 of hearing dated 22.9.2018 which was earlier sent by speed post and returned undelivered and is claimed to be served by affixture on 24.9.2008 at E-82, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi - 110 091 is an invalid service as the company as per its return of income specified its address....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion in the case of CIT vs. Kishand Chand reported in 328 ITR 173 wherein it was held that "the revenue was unable to show that there was any refusal of the assessee to accept service. On the other hand, the Tribunal had categorically held that no other mode was adopted and steps for service of notice were taken about a week before the time was expiring. In view of the finding of the Tribunal, there was no proper service. ii) ITAT, Delhi decision in the case of Ess Aar Exports vs. ITO reported in 94 ITD 484 wherein it has been held that while affecting the service through affixture, local witness ought to have been associated in order to identify the address of affixture. iii) CIT vs. Chandra Agencies (Delhi) 202 Taxman 106 wherein it has been held that the service of notice through affixture was not proper when the correct address was available with the AO. iv) CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh (SC) (1971) 82 ITR 888 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that service of notice must be in accordance of law. Otherwise assessee could not be said to have given proper opportunity to put forward the case. v) ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (SC) 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee within the stipulated time limit for the previous year under consideration. I have also examined the services made through affixture for notices u/s 143(2)(ii) for service of notice dated 16-09-2002 served through affixture on 26-09-2002 & notice dated 28-10-2002 served through affixture on 28-10-2002. These notices have been served through affixture at address G4A, Gupta Apartments, 138, Kalkaji New Delhi-19, and these. have duly been served through process server. Service of these notices have duly been confirmed by the Inspector of the ward and the service through affixture if has also been duly validated by the then AO. Therefore, I do not find that there was any default in service of notice u/s 143(2)(ii) by the AO which was validly served on the assessee. 4.6.3 It is also observed that similar ground was raised by the appellant in appeal filled before my predecessor which was disposed by him vide order dated 21-10-2004 observing as under: "5.4 I have considered the submission of the Appellant and have perused the assessment record. I find the submissions of the Appellant are devoid of merits. The Income Tax Officer sent the notice by registered p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 2000 (21 of 2000); or (d) by any other means of transmission of documents as provided by rules made by the Board in this behalf. (2) The Board may make rules providing for the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which the communication referred to in sub-section (1) may be delivered or transmitted to the person therein named. 7.2 We further reproduce here below the Order V Rule 17 of the CPC: 17. Procedure when defendant refuses to accept service, or cannot be found.- Where the defendant or his agent or such other person as aforesaid refuses to sign the acknowledgment, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, who is absent from his residence at the time when service is sought to be effected on him at his residence and there is no likelihood of his being found at the residence within a reasonable time and there is no agent empowered to accept service of the summons on his behalf, nor any other person on whom service can be made, the serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imitation for service of notice u/s 143(2) expired on 31.10.2002, hence, such notice had to be mandatorily served by 31.10.2002; however, admittedly, the first notice was issued on 16.09.2002; the said notice was sent by Regd. Post and admittedly the same returned back unserved on 21.9.2002 without any postal remark. According to A.O., another notice was issued and served through Process Server and Inspector on 26.9.2002; but there is no entry in the order sheet to this effect. According to A.O., another notice was issued and served through process server and inspector on 28.10.2002; but there is no entry in the order sheet to this effect also; the next notice was dated 7.7.2003 which is beyond statutory period. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that Revenue has failed to establish that it has followed the procedure as laid down under Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; under order V Rule 17 & 20 of the CPC, hence, the Service of Notice is illegal and void ab initio. Our view is fully supported by the following judgments:- a) CIT vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh 82 ITR 888 SC - the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "The contention of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s mandatory. The first requirement is to ensure that the place is properly identified and, secondly, the report is authenticated by independent persons to avoid any attempt by the process server to prepare the report sitting in his office. The Tribunal has referred to the report dated July 23, 2001, issued by the process server. According to the report of the Inspector/notice server dated July 23, 2001, the notice was affixed on the main door of shop No. 33, Anajmandi, Mullanpur. There was no evidence of any local person having been associated with in identifying the place of business of the assessee-respondent and the report is not witnessed by any person at all. It has been found to be flagrant violation of rule 17 of Order V of the Code which lays down a procedure to serve notice by affixture. The conclusion is recorded in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the order which reads thus: "13. So, however, in the report of the inspector/notice server, who claimed to have affixed the notice, there is no evidence of any independent local person having been associated with the identification of the place of business of the assessee. in fact such report is not witnessed by any person....