Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 446 - ITAT CHANDIGARHReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Non service of notice - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the present case since AO had not mentioned the father's name of the assessee in the notice dated 31.03.2016 issued u/s. 148 of the Act, the same was received back unserved. So far as the contention of the AO that the notice was served under Order V Rule 20 of the CPC is concerned, the satisfaction recorded by the AO on 31.03.2016 (copy of which is available in paper book) does not establish that the notice was served upon the assessee in terms of Order V Rule 20 of the CPC because the AO has not mentioned the complete address of the assessee including father's name House No. and the premises where the notice was to be affixed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Upadhyay vs. Shanabhai P. Patel [1987 (4) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the A.O. cannot initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act, without service of notice under section 148. In the present case the documentary evidence on record establishes that the notice u/s. 148 was neither served to the assessee personally or by post nor served by affixing the copy thereof in terms of order V Rule 20 of CPC. On the other hand, there is no merit in the contention of the department that the AO had passed the reassessment order after serving notice to the assessee u/s. 148 of the Act. Hence, in our considered view, since the AO had passed the assessment order u/s. 147 of the Act, in violation of the mandatory provision under section 148 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly affirmed the order passed by the AO, therefore the impugned order is not sustainable in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|