2025 (2) TMI 1749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....together and pertain to same assessee, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. Relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules. ITA No. 2365/DEL/2024 [Revenue's appeal] 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual resident. During the A.Y 2017-18, the assessee started the livestock business being poultry, fresh meat, fish, mutton chicken, etc. Sales started on 01.01.2017. During the year, the assessee indulged in supplying the livestock to some small suppliers and some retail dealers. The assessee stated that he is not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r passed by the Assessing Officer and allowed the appeal by holding that there is no valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act and so the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to conduct reassessment proceedings. It was also held that the notice had been served at the wrong address and cannot be considered as a valid notice. Thus, the reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the IT Act is null and void. 10. Aggrieved further, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 11. Before us, the ld. DR contended that the ld. CIT(A) was not right in holding that there is no valid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act and the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to conduct reassessment proceedings. 12. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee submi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice issued u/s 148 of the Act at the old address of the assessee, though the return of income filed before the issue of notice showed the new address, was not valid. 16. The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on the following case laws: (i) [2023] 152 taxmann.com 559 (Kamataka), Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (ii) (2021) 133 taxmann.com 191 (Gujarat) Shilp Realty (P.) Ltd v Income Officer, Ward 4(1)(3), Ahmedabad (iii) [2022] 137 Maruthachalam taxmann.com 280 (Madras), Kausalya Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Commissioner of Income-tax, NFAC, Delhi Assistant 17. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We ....