Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 913 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - no valid service of the notice u/s 148 - service of the notice u/s 148 by way of affixture at place where the assessee is known to have last resided or carried on his business or personally worked for gain - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the affixture order reveals that Shri Swaran Singh, ITO, Ward-III, Khanna directed Shri Pamam Vir Singh Duggal, Income Tax Inspector to effect the service of the notice u/s 148 of the Act by way of affixture under Order V Rule 20 of CPC, 1908 on the conspicuous part of place where the assessee is known to have last resided or carried on his business or personally worked for gain. No address of such place has been mentioned in the said affixture order. It is not clear from where the Income Tax Inspector would come to know about the last known address of the assessee either of his residence or of his working place. Even in the report of the Inspector of the same date i.e. 26.3.2013, he has simply written ‘affixed by me’. Even he has not mentioned as to where he had gone to affix the notice, to say whether it was affixed at the last known residential address of the assessee or at the last known work place of the assessee. Though the signature of one Shri Mangat Ram have also been appended but who that Mangat Ram is/was, has not been mentioned; whether he was an independent witness available at the place where the affixation was done or was an employee of the income Tax office, is not coming out. Even as mentioned above, the notice by registered post as well as by way of substituted service was allegedly served on the same date. There was no reason for the satisfaction of the AO that the alleged notice cannot be served in an ordinary way. AO issued the affixture order on the same day without waiting for the outcome of the service of notice sent through ordinary way i.e. by way of registered post. Service could not be effected at the village address of the assessee, the AO thereafter served the notice u/s 142(1) at his office address which means that the Assessing officer had come to know the office address of the assessee at which service can be effected but admittedly no notice u/s 148 of the Act was served on the assessee at his office address also. Under the circumstances, it is clear that there was no valid service of notice u/s 148 on the assessee. The issue, therefore, is squarely covered by the recent decision of ‘Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. ACIT’ [2019 (2) TMI 1209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that the issue of a notice u/s 148 is a foundation for reopening of assessment and condition precedent for framing of the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act. Since there was no valid service of the notice u/s 148, therefore, the consequent assessment proceedings framed u/s 147are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are accordingly quashed. The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.
|