TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the same. 3. That, the CIT(A) has erred in observing, that, the notice u/s. 148 has been properly served through affixture without appreciating the fact that no notice has ever been issued within time limitation as per the provision of section 149 of the Act. 2. The brief facts relating to the issue are that the proceedings u/s 147 were initiated and after recording the decision and with the previous approval of Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-16, Delhi accorded by letter filed No Addl. CIT Range-16, 2013-14/928 dated 28.03.2014 notice u/s 148 was issued in this case. The AO further mentioned the notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2014 which was sent by speed post acknowledgment no. Ed-137317219IN, which was received that unserved from the postal authorities. This notice has been sent at the address as provided by the assessee in its latest E-file ITR for the A.Y. 2013-14. i.e. at 36, ground floor, Hargovind Enclave, Vikas Marg, New Delhi. A copy of the said notice was got serve through a fixture made by a notice served, Mr. Rajinder Kumar, in the presence of Inspector of Income tax, Mrs. Ku....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....self proof that all the stories after thought objection raised by the appellant. 2.2. The assessee has also relied the following the decision:- * CIT vs. Chetan Gupta reported in 62 Taxman.com 249. * The assessee has submitted that in view of the above, the Hon'ble Court held that the issuance and service of the notice u/s 148 is mandatory as per the provision of section 148(1) of the act. The assessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated without the issuance and service of notice are invalid and liable to the quest. Further, onus on the revenue to show the proper issuance and service of the notice has been made in accordance with i section 282(1) of the act read with order file rule 12 and order 3 rules 6 of civil procedure court. * The assessee has also relied the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon reported in 321ITR 362 and the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case CIT v. Hotline international Pvt. Ltd. reported in 296 ITR 333 (Del) where it is held that on account of no proper issuance and service of notice u/s 148 of the act on the assessee the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. * The assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l the story is after thought after the objection raised by the assessee appellant. The assessee has also relied upon certain decisions on this issue. The above submissions of the assessee have been considered with reference to the assessment record and the same are not found tenable. A perusal of the assessment records reveals that notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2014 and was sent by speed post. The said envelope containing the notice was received back unserved with the remarks of postal authorities that "Makaan No.36 HE ka G-P- khaali pada hai,...vapis...Sd/- 31.3.014". Since the said notice was received back unserved, the said notice was got served through affixture and the service by affixture was made by the Notice Server in the presence of Inspector of the Ward which was also declared valid by the AO on 07.04.2014. Therefore, the submissions of the assessee that no notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in this case and that the service of the said notce was not made on the assessee, there are no remarks of the postal authorities etc. is not acceptable as the service effected through affixture is a valid service under the Income Tax Law as well as the provisions of Civil P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the reassessment proceedings and service of notice. The AO has mentioned the fact that notice was issued on 28.03.2014 after recording the reasons and with the prior approval of Addl.CIT. This notice was sent through speed post at the latest address given by the appellant. The notice was received back unserved so notice was got served through affixture. 2.6.1 The assessee has objected that no notice was issued before 3103.2014. The assessee has also submitted that there was no remarks of postal authority not tenable. The AO has verified the fact in the remand report and submitted that the said envelope containing the notice received back unserved with the remarks of postal authority "makan no.36 HE ka G.P. khaali pada hai....vapis...Sd/- 31.03.2014". The said notice was also got served through affixture by the notice server in the presence of the Inspector of the Ward. The service through affixture is a valid service under the IT Act, 1961 as well as provision of Civil Procedure Code and as per General clause Act. The assessee has also stated that notice should be served as per requirement of section 151 of the IT Act. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rified that in the envelope the postal authority has been given the remarks. This fact proves that notice was issued on 28.03.2014. 2.6.3 The assessee has made second objection regarding details/tracking record of speed post supplied by the AO. The number was ED137317219IN, the copy of the same was being annexed. The assessee has submitted that after going through the tracking details it was found that the speed post number ED137317219IN was booked on 10.03.2014 and same was received by Laxmi Nagar post on 31.03.2014 and after that the delivery attempted claimed it and the said alleged post was received back to the address on 02.04.2014 whereas the AO claimed that it the notice was sent through speed post on 28.03.2014 and same was received back on 31.3.2014 which is totally perverse to the evidence provided by the AO himself. The argument of the assessee is not tenable. The track record is not only for one day the track record contains the details from 10.03.2014 to 2.04.2014 where several entries are there regarding speed post on different date. Further from verification of the record it is clear that satisfaction was recorded on 2'5.03.2014 and the proposal for approval w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case and deserve to be rejected on account of the following: 1. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 28.03.2014 at assessee address after Addl CIT approval dated 28.03.2014. It was not delivered and received back with postal remarks "UNSERVED". The notice was served through afiixture [Para 2 & 2.1 of AO and Para 2 of CIT (A) (order] 2. The fact of received back notice is acknowledged both by the AO and CIT (A) in their respective orders. 3. Assessee responds on 28.01.2015 (filed on 12.02.2015) to treat the original return filed on 30.10.2007 as return file u/s 148. Notice u/s 143(2)/142(1) issued thereafter and assessee's counsel appeared and participated in proceedings.! Para 3 & Para 6.2 of AO and Para 2 & 2.1 of CIT (A) order] 4. Assessee received reasons and filed objections which were disposed off on 20.02.2015 and also on 16.03.2015. [Para 6.2,6.3 & 6.9 of AO] Alongwith the letter dated 20.02.2015, the AO also sends a copy of notice u/s 148 to the assessee. [Para 5 of letter dated 20.02.20IS.Assessee PB page 20-26.] From the above it is found that notice u/s 148 was issued well within time prescribed u/s 149 of the ACT and has a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t application of mind. In the following decisions, the Hon'ble courts have upheld the validity of re-assessment proceedings:- 1 PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. (2017-TIOL-253-SC-IT) (Copy enclosed) Where Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed SLP of assessee. Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. PCIT Vs Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/r2017] 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) Where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings. 2 - Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) (422 ITR 355) (115 taxmann.com 338) In para 24 of the judgment the Hon'ble Court has held "In our opinion, the tangible material in the present case is information received by the AO from DIT (l&CI). It would thus be apposite to refer to the said referred repor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09.2019 dismissing objections of the petitioner to the notice under section 148, it has been pointed out that the approval of the competent authority was obtained vide note sheet entries dated 31.03.2019 and the same was enclosed alongwith the order. However, the same has not been annexed to the present petitions. It has been argued that obtaining approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is not provided for under section 151 and therefore, the same is not justified. However, in the present case, approval/sanction has been obtained from both, the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax as well as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which is the appropriate authority for issuance of such sanction, as noted in Commissioner of Income-tax-8 (Erstwhile CIT-III) V. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd [2015] 58 taxmann.com 336 (Delhi). 42. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no independent application of mind by the sanctioning authorities for according approval. Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Div....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the reasons recorded by the AO. 3. Virbhadra Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner, Circle Shimla [2017] 88 taxmann.com 888 (Himachal Pradesh) Where the competent authority was in agreement with the reasons assigned by the Assessing Officer, so placed before him, which came to be considered and sanction accorded with proper application of mind, by recording "I am satisfied that it is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148"., the issuance of notice under section 147/148 was held to be valid." 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. It was the contention of the assessee that no notice u/s. 148 has been issued and served within stipulated time limit. However, the AO noted that notice u/s. 148 dated 28.3.2014 is alleged to be issued on 29.3.2014 and the said notice was issued through speed post ack. No. ED- 137317219IN, which was received back as unserved on 31.3.2014. The AO has provided the proof of postal tracking of the issuance alongwith the order disposing objection. However, it was the contention of the assessee that no notice has been issued before 31.3.2014. The assessee company has objected that no notice u/s. 148 is issued and s....