AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3. 2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the assessment order dated 06.05.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 / Assessing Officer holding that since the petitioner has failed to disclose the cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 1,52,10,000/-, the same was added as unexplained cash credits in the hands of the petitioner and it was also held that the petitioner shall be liable to pay penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly the 'Act' hereinafter) for concealment of income. 3. The primary challenge by the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not residing at the said address. Therefore, the service of notice under Section 148 of the Act could not be effectively served upon the petitioner. 6. So far as the non-service of notice under Section 148 of the Act is concerned is not in dispute, as this fact was admitted by the Assessing Officer himself in the course of passing the impugned assessment order, wherein in paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6 it has been held as under: "4. Further, notices under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued to the assessee on 21/11/2021 and 30/12/2021 to the assessee calling for information. 5. However, there was no response from the assessee till date. 6. Subsequently, the Inspector of this office is deputed for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll been issued at the known and registered address of the petitioner, therefore the findings arrived at by the Assessing Officer does not warrant interference. It was also contended that if there was a change of address on the part of the petitioner / assessee, it was his duty to have intimated the respondents in respect of the same and ought to had amended the address so that the subsequent notices could had been sent to the changed address. Even messages by e-mail was also sent, which too the petitioner could not make much use of. 11. Moreover, the learned Senior Standing Counsel argued that since there is a remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under the statute, the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. The crux of the question involved in this matter is to the effect that whether the assessment order could be passed without serving the notice under section 148 of the Act. 10. In respect of such question, it is categorically stated by the petitioner in the affidavit and also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice contemplated under section 148 of the Act was not served on the petitioner. On the other hand, it is stated in the counter filed by the respondents and also contended by the learned standing counsel that the notice contemplated under section 148 was issued on September 17, 1999 and duly despatched on September 22, 1999 as per the despatch register. It is also further stated in the counter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment made under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (which corresponds to section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961), and if a valid notice was not issued as required, the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer in pursuance of an invalid notice and consequent orders of reassessment passed by him would be void and inoperative." 13. Section 34 of the old Act referred in the decision cited supra, is equivalent to section 148 of the Act, 1961. The principles laid down by the hon'ble apex court as well as this court, are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also, the notice contemplated under section 148 of the Act was not served on the petitioner. As a result, the entire proceedings culminating....