TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is determined to decline to accept the notice. We are further strengthened in taking the view by the fact that the appellant never brought on record as to how he had come to know of the passing of the assessment order against which he had pursued the legal remedies available under the Act within the stipulated time. In other words there was due service of notice u/s 148 upon the appellant by refusal. As relying on Jagdish Singh Vs. Natthu Singh reported in [1991 (11) TMI 246 - SUPREME COURT] held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement ‘refused’ or ‘not available in the house’ or ‘house locked’ or ‘shop closed’ or addressee not in station’, due service has to be presumed. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVIII, New Delhi dated 25.08.2012 in ITA No. 141/11-12 raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated upon the issue relating to alleged service of notice by affixture which was invalid and illegal. 2. That the issue of service of notice by affixture had been casually dealt with ignoring the submissions as well as reliance placed on various judicial authorities. 3. That the CIT(A) merely relied upon the remand report of Assessing Officer wherein he stated that service by affixture was valid service without considering the facts of the case and written submissions. 4. That the alleged service of notice u/s 148 by affixture was against the provisions contained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y him and also by furnishing the required information called for by the Assessing Officer. That no interest u/s 234B is leviable. That the AO was not justified in changing maximum slab rate on assessed income. That the appellant craves to add, alter or amend any grounds of appeal. It is prayed that the addition being unjustified and arbitrary may kindly be deleted. The assessment being bad in law as the initiation as well as service of notice u/s 148 and 142(1) by affixture being bad in law is liable to quashed and thus may kindly be quashed. 2. The facts of the present case are that the assessee is an individual. As we understand from the material available on record no return of income was filed voluntarily for the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of notice u/s 148 and therefore, the reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. On the merits of addition, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the confirmation letter from Mr. Satish Kumar filed as additional evidence cannot be admitted since there was no application as stipulated under the Rule 46A of IT Rules for admission such evidence. And finally it was held by CIT(A) that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus that was lying on him as per the provisions of the Act and confirmed the addition. Aggrieved the present appeal filed before us. 4. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that there was no proper service of notice u/s 148 of the Act as well as notice u/s 142 of the Act and therefore, the assessment made consequent to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the department had affixed the notice u/s 148 of the Act on the address given in the return of income i.e. Jyoti Nagpal, Tagore Garden, New Delhi with the remarks that Makan Khali Para Hai, ab yahan nahi rahti notice chipka diya gaya . We also find from the Page No.13 of the Paper Book filed by the department that the notice u/s 142 sent by speed post on 1.12.2008 received by the appellant on 06.12.2008. We fail to understand when the house was vacant in the month of January, 2008 how same person was residing at the same address in the month of December, 2008. This goes to prove that the appellant is determined to decline to accept the notice. We are further strengthened in taking the view by the fact that the appellant never brought o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view, this follows upon the presumptions that are raised under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 6. The Hon ble Apex Court in the cases of Jgdish Singh Vs. Natthu Singh reported in [1992] 1 SCC 647, State of M.P. Vs. Hiralal reported in [1996] 7 SCC 523 and V. Raj Kumari Vs. P. Subbarama Naidu reported in [2004] 8 SCC 774 held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement refused or not available in the house or house locked or shop closed or addressee not in station , due service has to be presumed. Similarly, when the notice server affixed notice on the last known address with the remark that not available in the house, on the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
