Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2007 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (9) TMI 297 - ITAT DELHI-CPrayer for Quashing the Assessment Order - Absence of mandatory service of notice u/s 143(2) - Best judgment order passed u/s 144 - Validity of Notice by affixture - HELD THAT:- According to the reverse of the notice u/s 143(2) the notice server had the knowledge that the assessee was residing in 55/28 Sector, Faridabad; since this address has been noted therein and despite having such knowledge, the notice was served by affixture on the Kalkaji address. This clearly shows that reasonable diligence was not shown by him i.e. the serving officer. When he knew that the assessee had moved to Faridabad from Kalkaji he ought to have proceeded to Faridabad o serve the notice. Thus, the contention based on r. 17 is also to be upheld. There is no evidence to show that the notice server (Shri Babulal) was required to file an affidavit or that he was examined by the AO on oath. Such procedural irregularities do invalidate the service of the notice as held by the Kerala High Court in M.O. Thomas vs. CIT [1962 (2) TMI 88 - KERALA HIGH COURT]. It is also seen that no reasonable attempts were made by the AO or the serving officer to find the assessee before serving the notice by affixture. Thus, we are of the view that the notice served on the assessee on 31st Oct., 2002 in its Kalkaji address was not validly served as required by s. 282(1) of the IT Act. There is no acknowledgment on record. There is no other evidence from which it can be definitely asserted that the notice was served on the assessee at the aforesaid address. The record produced before us does not contain any order-sheet entry on 8th Nov., 2002, the date on which the assessee was required to appear before the AO by the notice issued on 25th Oct., 2002 by registered post. This is one pointer to the fact that the said notice was not served on the assessee. Hence, we hold that there is no valid service of notice on the assessee u/s 143(2) either by affixture or by post. In this situation, we have no option but to quash the assessment on the basis of the judgments of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Lunar Diamonds [2005 (3) TMI 33 - DELHI HIGH COURT], Vardhman Estates (P) Ltd.[2006 (9) TMI 128 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Bhan Textiles [2006 (9) TMI 129 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. We direct accordingly and allow ground Nos. 2 and 3. In the result, the assessment is cancelled and the appeal is allowed.
|