TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1916
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see, hence the reassessment deserves to be quashed as void abinitio. 3. That the AO has wrongly made an addition of Rs. 3,08,000/- on account of payment received from M/s. Azad Engineering Works, Bathinda. 4. That the appellant request for accepting the returned income by deleting the impugned addition made in the declared income of the assessee. 5. That the interest u/s 234B & 234C has wrongly been charged." 2. Ground No.1 is general. 3. As per Ground no.2, no notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In short, the 'Act'), was never served on the assessee. 4. The facts pertaining to this issue as per the ld. CIT(A)'s order are that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 28.03.2011 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Silver Streak Trading Pvt. Ltd. reported in CTR vol. 216 page 261." 6. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed as follows: "On perusal of the rival contentions, it has been noticed that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2011 was served by the Assessing Officer through notice server on one Sh. Chhote Lal on 29.03.2011 who appears to be the representative of the assessee." 7. The ld. CIT(A), thus, held as under: "I am of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has assumed valid jurisdiction over the case of the assessee by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act which was also served on the representative of the assessee on 29.03.2011." 8. The ld. counsel for the assessee, challenging the ld. CIT(A)'s action, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... year 2004-05 was received on 14.06.2011. This was the first communication received by the assessee from the Income Tax Department for the above said year. 3. That no notice under section 148 was ever received by the assessee or served on any of the partners/relative or employees of the said concern. Sh. Chhote Lal is not related to any of the partner or employee of the firm. 4. That the assessee raised the objection regarding the non receipt of notice u/s 148 on the first date of hearing which remained indisposed off by the department." 10. The ld. counsel for the assessee had drawn my attention to APB 18, which is a copy of assessee's letter dated 16.06.2011 to the AO stating therein, that the assessee never received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued u/s 148 is none of the partner or employee of the said concern. Therefore, as the revenue having adduced no material to show that the impugned notice u/s 148 was in facts served upon the assessee within the prescribed time, the explanation filed by the assessee before the AO stating that it has not received any notice issued u/s 148 has to be accepted as held by Delhi High Court as in the case of CIT vs. Silver Streak Trading Pvt. Ltd. reported in CTR 216 page 261." 12. Thus, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that in the absence of service of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the reopening of the completed assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration and all proceedings subsequent thereto, including the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29.03.2011, who "appears to be the representative of the assessee". 16. The requirement of law in this regard is specific: "8. In this regard, it is seen that the issue is governed by section 282 of the IT Act, as per which, a notice under the Act may be served on the person named therein, either by post, or as if it were a summon issued by Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Now Order V, C.P.C. governs the service of summons issued by a Court. As per Rule 12 of Order V of the C.P.C, wherever it is practicable, service shall be made on the defendant in person, unless he has an agent empowered to accept service, in which case, service on such agent shall be sufficient. 9. In accordance with Rules 13 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer had reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. However, the assessee contended that he had not received any such notice and that it was only when he received a notice under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act that he came to know that a notice u/s 148 had been issued to him. The assessee filed a return under protest. The Tribunal held on the issues whether the notice under section 148 of the Act was actually received by the assessee when it was sent through the process server and also whether the notice was actually received by the assessee when it was sent through speed post in the negative. On appeal by the Revenue: Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that there was nothing to suggest that L was ....