Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 774 - ITAT AMRITSARValidity of Reopening of assessment - invalid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act as per procedure laid down as per Rule 17 of CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Notice served on the assessee by way of affixture through inspector without either presence or even signature of two independent witnesses of the neighborhood as per the procedure referred HELD THAT:- It is admitted fact on record that the notice u/s 148 was dated 27.03.2017, however, the AO has stated that the notice was issued on 15.03.2017 and served upon the assessee on 20.03.2017. In our view, it is beyond human probabilities to issue and serve notice a week before a date mentioned in the alleged notice issued u/s 148. Such factual mistakes and errors in the dates mentioned on the notice, and that of date of issue and date of service discussed in the assessment order rendered the basic foundation of the assessment erroneous and void ab-initio. There was gross violation of procedure in service of notice by way of affixture as laid down u/s 282 read with Rule 12, 17 and 19 or Order (v) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as the notice u/s 148 was served through affixture has been witnessed by Sh. Joginder Lal, TA and Paras Ram, Inspector of the office and not by two independent witnesses as required under the law. As per rule 17 of order V of CPC mandates, an independent local person be the witness for service through affixture and for the purpose of having been associated with the identification of the place - There was no evidence of any local person having been associated with identifying the place of business of the assessee-respondent and the report was not witnessed by any person at all. In our view, it has been clearly flagrant violation of rule 17 of Order (v) of the Code 1908 which lays down a procedure to serve notice by affixture. Accordingly, as per the aforesaid report of the Inspector/notice server, the requirements of the code of Civil Procedure have not been fulfilled. Reopening assessment completed in pursuance to the alleged notice u/s 148 of the Act is held to be not valid and as such, the assessment order is quashed as void ab initio.
|