| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3421 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 148
Where assessee challenged that notice for reopening of assessment was issued at old address of assessee company and that too through affixture, action of revenue was unjustified because it was not case of revenue that assessee was not traceable or anyone representing assessee refused to receive the notice or to sign the acknowledgement thereof.
|
Reassessment - Notice issued by way of affixation - Notice for reopening of assessment issued at old address of assessee -
Assessee challenged completion of assessment under section 147/144 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on grounds of improper service of notice under section 148 and non-issuance of notice under section 143(2). Assessee contended that notice was issued at old address of assessee-company and that too through affixture. Held: Under Order V, Rule 17 of the Code of civil procedure, the affixation can be done only when assessee or his agent refuses to sign the acknowledgement or could not be found; whereas in instant it was not case of revenue that assessee is not traceable or anyone representing assessee refused to receive the notice or to sign the acknowledgement thereof. Circumstance brought to notice by assessee and on verification of order sheet entries made by AO, it was found that order sheet entries did not contain any entry regarding issuance of notice under section 148, nor about service thereof. When once assessee submitted that in response to notice under section 148, return was filed, it was incumbent upon AO, if at all, he proceeded to frame assessment under section 144/143(3), to issue notice under section 143(2), without which, assessment framed would not be legal.
Distinguished:PCTI v. Ven Interactive Limited (2019) 418 ITR 662 (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 7063 (SC)
REFERRED : CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 5081 (SC) ACIT & Anr. v. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) : 2010 TaxPub(DT) 1434 (SC) National Thermal Power Company Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) : 1998 TaxPub(DT) 0342 (SC) PCIT v. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 701 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4681 (Del-HC) CIT v. Delhi Kalyan Samiti [ITA No. 696/2015] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 1752 (Del-HC) PR. CIT v. Silver Line (2016) 283 CTR 148 (Del) : (2016) 383 ITR 455 (Del) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 0597 (Del-HC) PCIT v. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. [ITA. No. 519 of 2015, dated 14-10-2015] : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 4975 (Del-HC) PR. CIT v. Atlanta Capital Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 665/2015] : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 3772 (Del-HC) CIT v. Pawan Gupta & Ors. (2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del) : 2009 TaxPub(DT) 1648 (Del-HC) ITO v. Pinnacle Commodities Pvt. Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 1901/Kol/2018, dt. 9-8-2019]
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. : 2010-11
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|