2011 (3) TMI 1666 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in the absence of valid service of notice u/s 143(2).

Summary:

Validity of Notice u/s 143(2):

The assessee challenged the validity of the notice u/s 143(2) dated 30th October 2003, arguing that it was not validly served as per the provisions of section 282 of the I.T. Act read with the Civil Procedure Code 1908. The assessment order dated 30/03/2005 passed u/s 143(3) was therefore claimed to be null and void. The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee, stating that the notice was within the stipulated time and the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:

The assessee contended that the notice u/s 143(2) was served on Shri Sachin Agarwal, who was not authorized to receive it. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the assessee's brother in a similar case, stating that the assessment framed without proper service of notice was invalid. The Revenue relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi, which held that objections regarding jurisdiction must be raised within 30 days of receipt of notice.

Tribunal's Decision:

The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were similar to the case of the assessee's brother, where it was held that the notice u/s 143(2) was not validly served. The Tribunal reiterated that the notice must be served on the assessee or an authorized person within the stipulated period. Since the notice was served on an unauthorized person, the assessment framed u/s 143(3) was deemed void ab initio. The Tribunal annulled the assessment order dated 30/03/2005 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, following the precedent set in the case of the assessee's brother.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal annulled the assessment order due to the invalid service of notice u/s 143(2), rendering the remaining grounds of appeal unnecessary to discuss. The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 07/03/2011.