9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging therein validity of assessment order passed by u/s 144/47 as bad in law in view of the invalid service of notice u/s 148 of the Act as per procedure laid down as per Rule 17 of CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice u/s 148 dated 27.03.2017 issued by Income Tax Officer, Ward Nakodar has been stated to be issued on 15.03.2017 and served on the assessee by way of affixture through inspector on 27.03.2017 without either presence or even signature of two independent witnesses of the neighborhood as per the procedure referred in section 282 read with Rule 12, 17 and Rule 19 of Order (v) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee could not be said to have been given proper opportunity to put forward their case as there was not a proper service. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR stands by the impugned order. However, he could not controvert the contention raised by the ld. AR regarding invalid service of notice u/s 148 by way of an affixture as per procedure laid down as per Rules 20 or order (v) of CPC. 4. We have heard both the sides, perused the material on record, impugned order and case law cited before us. It is admitted fact on record that the notice u/s 148 was dated 27.03.2017 (APB pg. 2), however, the AO has stated that the notice was issued on 15.03.2017 and served upon the assessee on 20.03.2017. In our view, it is beyond human probabilities to issue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l High Court in the case of CIT v. Naveen Chander [2010] 323 ITR 49 (Punjab & Haryana), has observed that the Tribunal had record to the report issued by the process server. According to the report of the Inspector/notice server, the notice was affixed on the main door of Shop No. 33. There was no evidence of any local person having been associated with identifying the place of business of the assessee-respondent and the report was not witnessed by any person at all. It has been found to be flagrant violation of rule 17 of Order (v) of the Code which lays down a procedure to serve notice by affixture. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in holding that having regard to the report of the Inspector/notice server, the requirements of the code of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
