TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erver’s file noting conclusively established that notice could not be served (due to his absence) and the defect alleged in the affixture (at the address) is insubstantial and unmerited. The revision petition admitted in clear terms that the reassessment order and subsequent demand notice, were received. In the circumstances, the argument that notice of reassessment and hearing notices were not received, rings hollow. Undoubtedly, reassessment proceedings can be initiated and completed after notice to the assessees and granting opportunity to them. However, the facts of this case reveal that not only were the notices received, even the reassessment order was received (the revision petition admits as much) and the assessee did not care to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Delhi-110006 which was registered with the sales tax department at Delhi. The Petitioner filed his income tax return for the AY 2008-09 with ward 26(4) against PAN No. AEEPJ7166A on 29.09.2008. Along with the return, he filed an audit report in Form 3CB as required under Section 44AB of the Act fully disclosing all the details relating to sale/purchase, expenses, etc. On 26.04.2010, search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act was carried out of M/s Rakesh Gupta, Vishesh Gupta, Navneet Jain Vaibhav Jain (hereafter Rakesh Gupta Ors. ). The search assessments in accordance with provisions of the Act (Section 153A etc) were pursued by the Revenue, against Rakesh Gupta Ors. In the meanwhile, claiming that the materials gathered and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion petition, it was averred as follows: The petitioner received on 28/01/2016 an assessment order passed under section 143(3)/147 of the I T Act, 1961 on 11-012016 accompanied by a notice of demand of date for ₹ 785588.00 from the ITO, Ward-63(3), New Delhi in the case of M/s Jindal Metal Co. in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2008-09. As it was not addressed to the petitioner and did not emanate from his jurisdictional Assessing Officer, namely, ITO, Ward-26( 4), New Delhi the petitioner took these to have been miss-sent and didn't bother much about it. On 21-12-2016 the petitioner received yet another assessment order passed under section 143(3)/14 7 of the I T Act, 1961 accompanied by another notice of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT disposed of the revision petition, stating as follows: I have carefully considered the submission of the assessee in the petition under reference and the comments offered by the assessing officer in this regard. It is a fact on record that the assessee had not bothered to appear before the assessing-officer in response to valid notice issued under section 148 of the income tax act 1961 and assessee has partially admitted its lapse, which according to him is due to the fact that the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act and subsequent assessment order was received on January 28, 2016 passed under section 144/147 of the IT Act 1961 dated 11.01.2016 accompanied by a notice of demand of status of firm for the A.Y. 2008-09 but accordingly to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and material reasons and the assessee is required to file a return of income in response to issue of notice under section 148 of the IT Act 1961, even if return if filed under section 139 or 142(1) of the IT Act, therefore, this petition of the assessee seeking relief for the cancellation of the assessment order is herebydismissed being devoid of any merits. However, the assessing officer should verify the details submitted by the assessee during the review petition filed before the undersigned and take appropriate action as provided under the income tax act, 1961 including rectification for carrying out the change of status of the assessee and if deemed necessary may obtain the necessary records of the case from the present assessing offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id notice was said to be affixed on 24.03.2015. The affixture was said to be made under Order V Rule XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that as per the affixture report, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the notice server stated that he had affixed the notice at the address of the petitioner, in the presence of the Inspector, who affirmed that the notice has been affixed by the notice server at the last known address. It was therefore, argued that the entire reassessment proceedings and additions made were vitiated and consequently, the Commissioner erred in not interfering with it. Learned counsel relied on some decisions, notably R. K. Upadhyay v Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 3 SCC 96 and that of this Court in Commissioner of Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
