TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 139
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t facts are that the assessee is an individual and Ex-BBMP employee who claimed to be engaged in agricultural activities. The assessee was subject to search proceedings under section 132 of the Act carried out as on 28th January 2016. Consequence to the search, the assessment proceedings under section 153A of the Act was initiated for A.Ys. 2010-11 to 2016-17. 4.1 The AO i.e. ACIT central circle (1)(1) Bengaluru, during the assessment proceedings issued various notices requiring the assessee to furnish certain details and explanation which were duly complied with by the assessee. The assessment was getting barred by time as on 31st December 2017 as per the provision of section 153B of the Act. 4.2 The assessee claimed that he did not receive the assessment order. Accordingly, the assessee through the authorized representative inquired about the status of assessment proceeding vide letter dated 9th February 2018. In response to the letter, the assessee received a reply from the office of ACIT central circle 1(1) Bengaluru dated 19th February 2018 that the assessment was passed dated 29th December and the same was served on Shri Munichandra K as on 9th January 2018 by the notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpleted and dispatched well within the prescribed limitation and the contention of the assessee that the order is barred by limitation was devoid of any merit. The AO to buttress his argument submitted copy of envelop and speed post slip, letter from notice server Shri S Krishna Murthy etc. 7. In rejoinder to remand report, the assessee has submitted that the impugned assessment orders under section 153A of the Act are bad in law, being both time-barred and improperly served. It was argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) completely failed to explain why the orders were dispatched to a wrong and unrelated address, despite having the correct address of the assessee available in the PAN database, income-tax returns, and also in the documents filed during the search proceedings including the Panchanama and sworn statements. The assessee points out that while earlier statutory notices under section 142(1) and notices of attachment under section 226 were properly sent to the correct address, the final assessment orders, demand notices, and penalty notices were suddenly sent to an alien address at "Flat No. 603, Athens, Prestige Properties, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560034," which has n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tre, which itself proves that the impugned orders were not served within the prescribed limitation of 31-12-2017. Further, 31-12-2017 was a Sunday and a public holiday, when postal operations are generally closed. Hence, the Department's claim that the orders were dispatched on 30-12-2017 or earlier is wholly unreliable. The fact that the acknowledgement slip is no longer traceable on the India Post website further casts serious doubt on its authenticity. 7.5 The assessee also highlights multiple unanswered questions that the AO has failed to address in the remand report: (i) why the orders were sent to an alien address, (ii) why the orders were served on an unrelated person, (iii) why the returned orders were not corrected and reissued to the correct address, (iv) How the Department claims the orders were under its control until 09-01-2018 when they had already left the AO's office, and (v) why the Department's correspondence, particularly the letter dated 12-02-2018, was issued only after the assessee's representative requested details on 08-02-2018. 7.6 All these circumstances, according to the assessee, show that the evidence c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The assessment order dated 29/12/2017 was dispatched on 30/12/2017 as per the speed post acknowledgement. It however was returned back by the Postal authorities. However, it is evident from the records that the assessment order was passed within the statutory time limits and left the control of the Assessing officer on 30/12/2017. Hence to contend that the assessment order is time barred is factually incorrect. From the Speed post acknowledgement, it is seen that the postman tried to serve the order but no such person was found at the mentioned address. The speed post acknowledgement bears the date seal of 1/1/2018. Hence, I am of the opinion that the assessment order was passed well within the time limits. Grounds raised is accordingly dismissed. 5.6 As regards the wrong mention of the address of the appellant, it is seen that no prejudice is caused to the appellant by the same. It is also further noticed that once the assessment order was returned back, the AO did tried serving the order through the Notice Server. The report of the notice server and the tear off acknowledgement are also on record. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the Notice Server visited the resi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....returned by the postal authorities as undelivered, the AO failed to take corrective steps. Instead of re-sending the orders by registered post to the correct address, the AO resorted to delivering them through a departmental notice server. According to the ld. AR, this was irregular and contrary to the procedure laid down in section 282 and Rule 127 of the Income Tax Rules. Rule 127 specifically requires service at the PAN database address, the address mentioned in the return, or another address furnished by the assessee in writing. Since none of these conditions were met, the ld. AR argued that the service was invalid in law. 10.3 He also raised doubt on the authenticity of the notice server's report. The report stated that the order was served on one Sri Munichandra, allegedly the "manager" of the assessee at the behest of the assessee's son. The AR clarified that Sri Munichandra was not related to the assessee, never authorized to accept orders, and the entire episode was concocted to cover the lapse. He pointed out that the notice server was a departmental employee, working under the AO's control, and hence his statement lacked independent credibility. 10.4 The learned AR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olkata in Subrata Roy in ITA No. 240/Kol/2010 held that unreasonable delay in service of orders, without explanation, makes the order time-barred. • The ITAT Delhi in Pankaj Sharma and Instrumentation Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 3556 & 3557/Del/2015 set aside assessments where dispatch was made after the limitation date. • The ITAT Bangalore in Kullachari Puttamma Nanjundi Vishwakarma in ITA No. 951/Bang/2022 held that mere entry in departmental registers is not enough; orders must be handed over to postal authorities before the limitation expires. 10.8 The ld. AR submitted that these cases directly apply to the present facts and clearly establishes that the orders in question were invalid and barred by limitation. Finally, the ld. AR submitted that the principles of natural justice were also violated. No show-cause notice was given to the assessee before making huge additions, and crucial departmental documents like the notice server's report and postal records were never shared with the assessee until the appellate stage. This denial of opportunity to rebut the evidence caused grave prejudice. In conclusion, the ld. AR argued that the entire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces were sent to the correct address, and if so, provide the date of service of notices. It is submitted that Notice u/s 142(1) issued to the assessee was also received by the AR during the assessment proceedings. The contention that no intimation was given to the assessee after the assessment order was returned undelivered with postal remarks is not true. The assessment order along with the demand notice was handed over to Notice Server and physically served to one Sri. Munichandra K, Manager of the assessee on 09.01.2018 on the instruction of Sri. Ramesh Kumar s/o Sri. H Srinivas Reddy. The report submitted by the Notice server is enclosed for reference. f) 50 days' time was allowed in the penalty initiation notice instead of standard 30 days. It is submitted that the allowance of 50 days' time to respond to penalty notice is well within the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. The learned AR in rejoinder reiterated the submissions as made earlier vide letter dated 30-06-2025 with the further contention raised by the assessee regarding the veracity and validity of the assessment order that the question raised by the assessee have not been answ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tain not only the consignment number but also the weight, time, and office of booking. It is also necessary for the Department to maintain its own despatch register corroborating the booking for the dispatch. Without these, the mere production of a slip showing "received at Koramangala Business Centre on 01.01.2018" is inadequate to prove dispatch on 30.12.2017. 13.5 In the instant matter, the Department has only produced a speed post slip bearing acknowledgment number EK391437145IN, showing receipt at Koramangala Business Office on 01.01.2018. No evidence has been furnished to show: • The entry in the Department's dispatch register on 30.12.2017; • Postal booking receipt showing weight and time of dispatch; or • Consistent tracking records from India Post. 13.6 The absence of these supporting records raises serious doubt on whether the order actually left the control of the AO on 30.12.2017. The solitary slip with a 01.01.2018 seal, without corroboration, cannot establish dispatch within the limitation date. Further, 31.12.2017 was a sunday, which makes it improbable that postal operations would have processed the article before expiry ....