TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon ble High Court held that where notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee in accordance with law the reassessment made consequent thereto was without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In the case on hand as the Revenue could not prove the service of notice u/s 148 on the assessee in accordance with law the re-assessment made u/s 147 read with section 144 pursuant to such notice is void ab initio and bad in law. Hence, the reassessment order made u/s 144 read with section 147 is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A No.2089/Del/2018 - - - Dated:- 20-6-2022 - Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member For the Assessee : S/Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv., Shrey Jain, Adv., Deepesh Garg, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida dated 18.01.2018 for the AY 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised several grounds on merits and also on jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in reopening of the assessment. The assessee also raised additional grounds challenging the validity of 148 proceedings and the consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel submits that even in this Form the AO stated the address as resident of Ghookna, Ghaziabad. Further the column against permanent account number was shown as not available. Referring to page 1 to 22 of the paper book the Ld. Counsel submits that the assessee has filed return for the AY 2015-16 on 29.03.2016 which clearly mentioned the address of the assessee as 506-A, Tyagi Market, Meerut Road, Village Ghookna, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201011. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the return for the assessment year under consideration i.e., AY 2009-10 was filed on 04.03.2010 clearly mentioning the address of the assessee as 506-A, Tyagi Market, Meerut Road, Village Ghookna, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201011. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submits that the Department has in its knowledge the complete address, PAN details, copies of returns of the assessee with it but, however, notice u/s 148 was issued simply mentioning the address of the assessee as Village Ghookna, Ghaziabad. Therefore, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the notice u/s 148 was not served on the assessee. 5. The Ld. Counsel further submits that even in the order sheet noting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that once a notice is issued within the period of limitation jurisdiction becomes vested in the Assessing Officer to proceed to make reassessment. Further, it was held that the mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service of notice. While holding so the Hon ble Supreme Court held as under: 3. Sec. 34, conferred jurisdiction of the ITO to reopen an assessment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within the limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by the Court in J.P. Jani, ITO vs. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC) : TC51R.400 as also in CIT vs. Robert (1963) 48 ITR 177 (SC) : TC51R.1714. The High Court, in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi vs. ITO (supra), in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in s. 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being ss. 147, 148 and 149, in the 1961 Act. A clear distinction has been made out be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Section 148 of the Act. The entire discussion in this behalf, in appeal, is summarized by the ITAT in para 8 of its order, relevant portion whereof makes the following reading:- We have carefully considered the matter. We have also perused the record produced by the department. In our humble opinion, the CIT (A) has taken the correct view of the matter in holding that there was no valid service of notice under section 148 and hence the reassessment proceedings are null and void. The first notice issued on 29.1.2004 by speed-post was said to have been served on the old address at East of Kailash. There is no proof of service on record. Even otherwise, this is not valid service because the assessee had already filed its return for the assessment year 2003-04 on 28.11.2003 and in this return the address shown was Panchsheel Park. Thus, the record of the department already contained the new address of the assessee. Before issuing the notice under section 148 it was expected of the Assessing Officer to have checked up if there was any change of address, because valid service of a notice of reopening the assessment is a jurisdictional matter and this is a condition precede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
